Re: Conceptual problem solved by GOTO
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> ken mortenson wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> >
> > > I think speed has been emphasized so much because people are demanding
> > > reasons
> > > why to add goto and are rejecting any possibility of it ever making sense
> > > that
> > > goto may in some situations be easier to read/use/maintain.
> >
> > I think the example I gave shows the GOTO version to be easier to understand
> > and that can often be the case. The problem with GOTO is like the problem
> > with Nukes... proliferation. The best way to keep them from being used is
> > not to have them. We don't have the choice with Nukes, but we do have the
> > choice here and now with GOTOs.
> >
>
> I would like to see someone change the euphoria translator to output C code
> that does not use C goto's. I have seen other translators as well that use
> goto's
> extensively. I think it's a great approach. Easy on the translator, easy on
> the resulting compiler.
Because the output of the translator is geared for speed; it is not meant to be
read by or maintained by humans.
Most code doesn't need to be so highly optimized for the machine. As posted at
one of your links "that's the compiler's job".
> Now, I want to take my own domain language used for hospital billings and
> initial
> hospital claim auditing and translate that to Euphoria, but can I? Not easily.
> It's far easier to just translate to C and use gotos. Now, why not just
> do/keep
> that? Because it would be far, far easier to use Euphoria as the final
> language
> instead of dealing with users changing the domain language, triggering a
> compilation,
> swapping in the .so, etc...
>
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
