Re: goto: it's conceded
David Cuny wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 6:37:57 pm Kat wrote:
>
> > I just conceded to Derek that i cannot defend every possible use of "goto",
> > and i cannot support to his standards the use of "goto".
>
> Sorry for coming in late on the conversation, but please allow me to add my
>
> own grumpy two cents worth.
>
> I can't see the harm of adding GOTO to Euphoria. It adds real value for some
>
> people, and it doesn't (as far as I know) harm anyone by adding it.
>
> Of course, I'm assuming the reason for not having a GOTO isn't technical.
>
> There's this odd idea that adding features to a language will cause it harm.
>
> This concept baffles me. Just because you can get by without a feature, or
> you can add a workaround to do without it, doesn't mean the language is
> better off without that feature.
>
> Here's a feature I found in Python: an 'else' clause for loops. The 'else' is
>
> triggered if the loop is exited without a 'break' being encountered. For
> example:
>
> -- look for my name in a sequence
> for i = 0 to length(s)
> if equal( s[i], "my name") then
> printf("got a match")
> break
> end if
> else
> printf("no match found")
> end for
>
> Although this is just syntactic sugar, it's really, really useful. But I can't
>
> see this ever getting implemented in Euphoria, because the language purity
> police will argue that you can do the same thing without the 'else' clause.
>
> Adding it would only bloat the language.
>
> From my perspective, this need to keep Euphoria spartan creates a language
> which isn't any fun to use. When I'm looking to code a solution, I look for
>
> the tool that will allow me to get something done, not for the one that
> enforced the maximum amount of B&D pain.
>
> To choose not to implement a feature because someone *might* misuse it,
> reminds me of the definition of a Puritain as being someone that worries that
>
> somewhere, someone might be having fun.
>
> If the feature isn't going to do any damage to you, but will be truly useful
>
> for someone, how do you justify not implementing it?
>
> OK, back to lurking.
>
> -- David Cuny
>
>
My sentiments exactly. I'm looking for the most expidicious way to solve a
programming problem. I've little use for maiking the program a work of art,
only functional and maintainable.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
