1. [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
- Posted by budmeister1 at JUNO.COM
Nov 14, 2000
Hi all,
This semester at college, I'm in a CS210 class that teaches C. My
prof is of the opinion that using break and continue in code is
evil. However, I've been in situations where using break and continue
is the cleanest way to code it. What do ya'll think?
Btw, apologies for the offtopic post ;)
----->Buddy
budmeister1 at juno.com
http://tenbux.iwarp.com/
2. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
Buddy writes (with apologies)--
"My prof is of the opinion that using break and continue in code is evil.
However, I've been in situations where using break and continue is the
cleanest way to code it. What do ya'll think?"
I think your prof is evil. I'd like to see her make a cpu that doesn't need
a jump instruction.
--Ken (with apologies)
3. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
On 14 Nov 2000, at 14:53, Ken Roger wrote:
> Buddy writes (with apologies)--
> "My prof is of the opinion that using break and continue in code is evil.
> However, I've been in situations where using break and continue is the
> cleanest way to code it. What do ya'll think?"
>
> I think your prof is evil. I'd like to see her make a cpu that doesn't need a
> jump instruction.
if ( acc == 12 ) then load address register 34123
Kat
4. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
Here's my 2 cents worth
Assuming that a break and continue is like a goto - I'd say it's really
handy sometimes, but a bad habit in general. It's not that jumps like that
are a bad way to get something done, it's that it's a bad way to think about
your problem. It tempts you to define what you're doing from the wrong
perspective.
Maybe using jumps is related to the problem of using flow charts. It makes
you think of the program as a bunch of parts that are assembled to make a
machine that does something. The advance with structural programming was to
start thinking of a program as a logical structure - more like a statement
than a machine. I think that probably "structured programming", with its
modularity leading all the way to OOP was found to be a far more powerful
way of writing code than the older languages. It did mean that you basically
had to forget about jumps though.
Bye
Martin
>
5. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
Nov 14, 2000
-
Last edited Nov 15, 2000
On 14 Nov 2000, at 18:13, simulat wrote:
> Here's my 2 cents worth
> Assuming that a break and continue is like a goto - I'd say it's really
> handy sometimes, but a bad habit in general. It's not that jumps like that are
> a bad way to get something done, it's that it's a bad way to think about your
> problem. It tempts you to define what you're doing from the wrong perspective.
>
> Maybe using jumps is related to the problem of using flow charts. It makes you
> think of the program as a bunch of parts that are assembled to make a machine
> that does something. The advance with structural programming was to start
> thinking of a program as a logical structure - more like a statement than a
> machine. I think that probably "structured programming", with its modularity
> leading all the way to OOP was found to be a far more powerful way of writing
> code than the older languages. It did mean that you basically had to forget
> about jumps though. Bye Martin >
>
Tht's fine if you already have an object, and the machine code under it. But
what if you need milk, and go to the store and they are out of milk? Do you
goto another store(), or redefine milk()? No matter what you call it, "calling
a procedure", "executing a method", or "instanicating an object", the
machine code does a goto or a gosub. There is not a good reason, imho,
for not propagating the command up into the higher level language. We
have the equivalent of all the other basic machine code commands in the
higher level languages. A goto command can eliminate the need to
"break", "continue", "next", "case", etc, and repeated tests on flag
variables. Granted, the goto in Eu should be restricted to the scope of the
procedure, function, or the main that it is used in.
Kat
6. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
- Posted by Irv <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
Nov 14, 2000
-
Last edited Nov 15, 2000
From: <budmeister1 at JUNO.COM>
> Hi all,
>
> This semester at college, I'm in a CS210 class that teaches C. My
> prof is of the opinion that using break and continue in code is
> evil. However, I've been in situations where using break and continue
> is the cleanest way to code it. What do ya'll think?
>
> Btw, apologies for the offtopic post ;)
Seeing that C is itself the greater evil, casting out break and continue
would be
like criticizing Satan's table manners.
Irv
7. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
In the absence of better exception-handling facilities, I used to use
setjmp/longjmp in C for that purpose *all the time*, in fact at my shop we
had a "structured" error-handling facility that was programmed using those
functions. So the argument could be made (in the absence of better
exception-handling), for the "non-local goto" of the setjmp/longjmp variety.
There are those who argue that it's hard to read / follow / understand code
using setjmp/longjmp. I found them no more "scary" or "obfuscating" than
(for example) recursion.
I am not arguing FOR goto. In general, I prefer to program without goto or
its "evil cousins", but there are cases where I find something like "exit"
preferable to the alternatives. And I appreciate built-in exception
handling. There are often cases where I want to do something in between
continuing to execute local code and terminating my program.
George
----Original Message Follows----
From: Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
Granted, the goto in Eu should be restricted to the scope of the
procedure, function, or the main that it is used in.
Kat
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
8. Re: [OFFTOPIC] CompSci class question
In the Ada-class I'm taking, they try to convince us that using "exit" is
sloppy coding..
My_loop:
while (condition) loop
if time_to_split then
exit My_loop;
end if;
end loop;
sloppy, eh? damn those proffessors, think they're smart or something :)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
