OpenEuphoria

Re: Good Use of GOTO

• Posted by Jim Brown <jbrown105 at linuxb?ddhist?net> Jun 06, 2008
• 837 views

c.k.lester wrote:
> No no no. I wanted examples of where a *Euphoria* program would
> significantly benefit from GOTO (that is, a performance increase of, say,
> 2-5%).
> 

Ok, a fair point. The example I pasted can be used to make a good case for this
- even in euphoria, if it was reimplemented by using lots of helper functions, it
would run slower than euphoria using goto.

A benchmark - 9,999,999 procedure calls takes 2.440000001 seconds. 99,999,999
goto jumps takes 0.9900000021 seconds.

So euphoria is a win, no matter which way you use.

> And why, if PCRE is going to be merged into the interpreter (I might not have
> that idea correct), then why the Euphoria language would need a GOTO. My
> thinking is that there are GOTOs in the C source already, but Euphoria doesn't
> need GOTO, so why does PCRE require Euphoria to have GOTO?

I never said this was the case.

EuPCRE would have required euphoria to have goto, but it is dead.