From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rgardner@nyx.net (Ray Gardner) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/09 Message-ID: <905305150.128179@iris.nyx.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389235383 X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a Free Public Access Internet Service: http://www.nyx.net Nyx is not responsible for the actions of its users. Our AUP / Free Speech Policy are at http://www.nyx.net/policies/ Direct complaints to abuse@nyx.net References: <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ece7ee.1489912@news.erols.com> <905134925.147581@iris.nyx.net> <35f34bbd.7903825@news.erols.com> <905187520.32147@iris.nyx.net> <35f61578.7870096@news.erols.com> X-Post-Path: iris.nyx.net!rgardner@nyx10.nyx.net Organization: random access Reply-To: rgardner@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 19:39:10 MDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Originator: rgardner@nyx10.nyx.net (Raymond Gardner) Date: 1998-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) wrote: > rgardner@nyx.net (Ray Gardner) wrote: > > [stuff elided] > > As I said that stuff is not proof to me they advocated se/se. To me > their point was to encourage use disciplined navigation for proof and > maintainability. Multiple returns can be disciplined navigation. Ell, you have an interesting notion of rational discourse. You ask for a single cite of a structured programming text, or founder, asserting that loops should be single-entry / single- exit. You are then given not one but four or five cites by various posters. Now you say "that stuff is not proof to me they advocated se/se." I ask you: what you would consider "proof" to be, if not the direct quotes you asked for. Unfortunately, I don't think we can get Prof. Dijkstra to come on the NG and tell you himself. If he did, would you say that wasn't "proof to me" either? So really, what would be "proof" that they did? And why do you ask for cites when you know in advance that you aren't going to accept any? Why do you engage in discourse at all when you seem entirely impervious to reasoned persuasion/discussion/argument? Let me ask you this: Have you ever, in any newsgroup discussions, ever, ever had the good grace to say: "Hey, you're right and I was wrong."? If not, is it only because you were never wrong? Do you sometimes get the feeling that the entire world (or at least a newsgroup) is against you? Do you ever wonder why? Do you care? Do you like it that way? Why is your tone so often antagonistic, e.g. "And your proof is what?" For cat's sake, I posted because I thought you really wanted to know what the original writings on SP said. For all my effort digging up quotes, you blow me off with "As I said that stuff is not proof to me...". I've wondered sometimes at the antagonism between you and other posters. Now I've tasted it myself, I can understand why people find you a bit difficult to deal with. What are you like to work with? Do you get along better with your co-workers than you do with your newsgroup "colleagues", or do you take that sort of tone with them? "And your proof is what?" Why not "Sorry, I must have missed that post. Could you fill me in?" > But either way, I'm not a dogmatist. I'll unite with the spirit of > maintainability and not rigid adherence to a practice when it clearly > contradicts that. How pragmatic of you. :-) I've used break statements and multiple exits on occasion myself. (Even a slew of goto statements in a Duff's Device-like piece of data decompression code.) But the issue you originally disputed was what the original writings on SP said, and that's not a matter of opinion. Those writings exist, they've been quoted to you, and you adamantly discount that. Why? > The main things I get from all of the structured writers is: > a) Use procedure calls (with consequent return) > b) Use procedural task abstraction (not isolated structures) > > Elliott Which of the "structured writers" have you read? Dijkstra? Wirth? Hoare? Mills? Ledgard? Yourdon? Anybody (other than Knuth; we know you've got _Literate Programming_, including "SP with go to Statements")? Any book titles at hand?