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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful)
Date: 1998/09/01
Message-ID: <pM2yTFA7FC71EwwR@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 386830346
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
References: <dewar.902415458@merv> <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980807124210.21259B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <dewar.902578088@merv>
 <slrn6sopmg.4fg.jdege@jdege.visi.com> <rfzpddz3s2.fsf@bnp-eng.remcomp.com>
 <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <dewar.903074236@merv>
 <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.903281994@merv>
 <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <l5HC1.6840$wN.1856764@news.giganews.com>
 <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m33eagru5g.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <JTCG1.566$H52.143421@client.news.psi.net>
 <EACHUS.98Aug31180539@spectre.mitre.org> <35EB3B71.ED6D4066@ibm.net>
 <6sfr1m$gi7$1@hirame.wwa.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 904667658 nnrp-01:1729 NO-IDENT
 dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <6sfr1m$gi7$1@hirame.wwa.com>, Robert Martin
<rmartin@oma.com> writes
>
>Biju Thomas wrote in message <35EB3B71.ED6D4066@ibm.net>...
>>Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <JTCG1.566$H52.143421@client.news.psi.net> "Frank Adrian"
><frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> writes:
>>>
>>>  > Again, the tasks you mention should be subsumed by code generators or
>>>  > higher-level design packages, not wasting programmers' time wondering
>if
>>>  > they got the goto in (and pointing to) the right place.
>>>
>>>    A fine point of view for an application developer.  But there are
>>> those of us who build tools like compilers, scanner generators, parser
>>> generators, etc.  Your code may not have gotos, and my code may not
>>> have gotos, but when you use my tools to generate your code, don't be
>>> surprised to find occasional (or not so occasional) gotos.
>>
>>These tools may be generating gotos since they are decades old, and
>>nobody ever tried to improve upon them.
>
>As long as the generated code does not have to be maintained, it doesn't
>matter if it generates goto's or not.

absolutely - otherwise we'd be arguing against compilers/linkers
generating assembler language 'jump' statements
-- 
Martin Dowie