Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked)

[bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)]

In article <dewar.866539123@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Within broad boundaries, I think the best approach is to write in the
>clearest way possible, and then, if there is an efficiency problem, examine
>ways to improve the code.

Agreed.

>I say within broad boundaries, because one needs to have a reasonable feel
>for gross levels of efficiency. For example, I sometimes see Ada 95 
>programs where controlled types have been used with complete abandon and
>obvious obliviousness to the fundamental inefficiencies that result.

I object to the term "fundamental" above.  I believe it is possible
(though not easy) to implement controlled types with near-zero overhead
on entering and leaving the scope of a controlled variable.

>But I would seldom chose between ways of doing things on an efficiency
>basis, and I certainly would not do so in this case. I would use the
>goto approach because I think it is clearer, even if it was less efficient,
>unless I found that it made a critical efficiency difference.

I agree on the criteria, but I disagree on the conclusion -- I like the
non-goto version of FSM's better.  I think it's important that we
recognize that it's a close call, which is why intelligent people
disagree on whether goto is appropriate in this situation.

- Bob