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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99222a5bd46ef3c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked)
Date: 1997/06/23
Message-ID: <dewar.867079599@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252148946
References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net>
 <199706121410.QAA05823@basement.replay.com> <dewar.866134855@merv>
 <33A0840B.1B41@sprintmail.com> <EBpyzK.5pH@world.std.com>
 <33A58C79.1C7A@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866548262@merv>
 <33A8DB59.776F@hello.nl> <33AE29D6.7258@sprintmail.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iJohn Volan says

<<I would not suggest inventing an entirely distinct syntactic gizmo for
Ada (or any similar language), simply because there would not be a
sufficient number of applications to warrant the added complexity in the
language.
>>

Right, I often state a rule that says that adding ANY feature AT ALL to
a language damages the language by increasing size and complexity. The
trick is to ensure that the positive contributions of the new feature
outweigh this damage.

I think this is an important language design principle. Otherwise you
end up saying "oh sure, stick this in, people do not have to use it
if they do not want it."