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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-28 12:52:56 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.ti.com!news.dseg.ti.com!amber.dseg.ti.com!fjm From: fjm@ti.com (Fred J. McCall) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should internet support software be written in Ada? Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 09:32:50 Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu> <3ki9t8$c8l@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3ks2o3$bab@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3l6hra$h05@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amber.dseg.ti.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Date: 1995-03-28T09:32:50+00:00 List-Id: In article <3l6hra$h05@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> Theodore Dennison writes: >Fred J. McCall writes >> In article <3ks2o3$bab@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> Theodore Dennison writes: >> >Now, I too have seen some bad C code in my time. But this is the first I have >> >EVER seen anyone actually use a "goto". In a language with a good selection of >> >looping constructs like C, there is NO excuse for this. (Well, perhaps >> >stupidity...) >> >> T'would seem that this commodity is actually on your part. Depending on the >> application and the structure of the problem, there are times when 'goto' is >> the appropriate solution. This sort of 'structured programming' bigotry is >> merely silly and is the sort of thing that leads to code obfuscated by >> numerous loops, tests, and unnecessary control variables. >"Structured Programming Bigotry"? Are you being serious? Yes. >Well, in case you are, I'm now curious. At what times is a "goto" an >appropriate solution? The best excuse I ever heard was for simulating exception >handling in a language that didn't support it. Any time the code is 'cleaner' with it than without it. This is often the case for things like state machines and dispatchers. By all means, though, if you don't have the judgement to be able to tell, you probably should never use it. >I'm sorry if I'm taking sarcasm seriously, but I didn't see any smileys. There weren't any. Any time you think you can unequivocably say that 'construct X is bad and should never be used', you are almost certainly wrong. This is *EXACTLY* the sort of thinking all too many 'structured programming bigots' inflict on the people around them. >> >> >There, That ought to get the flames going! >> >> Hope you're happy now. Don't bother to reply. The very comment convinces me >> you don't know enough to have a valid opinion. >Oooh! Looks like I was right. Wrong twice. One more strike and you're out.