Re: The fate of Euphoria
On 9 Nov 2004, at 0:05, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
> > > a full set of high-level program flow statements?
> >
> > No, there isn't. Scientists have proved that.
>
> Yes, there is. Execute faster.
>
> My position is this...
>
> A programming language is a tool to help people write and read programs.
> GOTO is useful for some people.
> No one is forcing people to use GOTO if it is present in a language (except
> assembler maybe). I would never use GOTO in any of my Euphoria programs. I
> would
> never deny other people the use of GOTO in a Euphoria program. Even though I
> would find it hard to trust such a program and I would give it a poor 'style'
> score 
>
> It sort like the 'free speech' position: I would defend a person's right
> to expression even if I disagreed with that person's expression.
>
> I believe that GOTO always leads to programs which are expensive to
> maintain. However, if that cost is acceptable, then the use of GOTO is
> fine.
It's not that anyone in their right mind would write code with 100's of goto in
it, but they might find it expedient to use one or two somewhere.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
