Re: Goto
Robert Craig wrote:
>Since some people think I should come out of hiding
>and voice an opinion on language design proposals,
>here's my current thinking about goto.
>
>1. completely general goto, including jumps
> between routines: 0% chance
Looking at the language, I think anyone would have to
say that that would be the predicted--and logical--
response.
>2. goto within a routine: 0.01% chance
Well, I think I agree with Everett's later statement:
one man's procedure may be larger than somebody else's
whole program. So I don't find this as a shock or a
tragedy either.
>3. specialized goto to break out of nested loops: 1% chance
Interesting; haven't really given this much mental
bandwith yet... I guess I will should this value
start to rise.
>The normal sort of gotos, that let you jump around within
>a routine are like cigarettes. One or two, once in a while,
>will not harm you. The trouble is they become addictive.
>If you never start using them, you will never have a craving
>for one.
Interesting analogy, I'll have to ruminate on
that one. I won't comment on the implications...
>When I had to maintain code written by someone
>else, the sight of a heavily goto'd section of code would
>really be discouraging.
I think that's the main reason those of use who
don't want to see gotos don't want them--even
though we *ourselves* wouldn't abuse them.
If cross-platform portability is enough of an
issue to create a language having it as a central
feature (i.e., Java) then I think forced universal
code clarity is enough of an issue to have a
language having it as a central feature (i.e.,
Euphoria.)
Rod Jackson
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
