Re: GOTO revisited
>I think the GOTO question is a language-specific one. In some languages
>you just have to have GOTO, in others it isn't required. You cannot write
>useful assembly language programs without a GOTO. For the past 10 years
>I've been writing commercial software using language called PROGRESS and
>doesn't even have a GOTO construct and it doesn't need one.
Haha, I know languages, where preciously the same 'tricks' were called
"structured goto's"
And indeed, this is the way I would want Euphoria to handle it.
No loose pointer, etc.
But indeed I would prefer not to call them goto's. Not becuz they are or are
not (I could care less about that), but due to the number of people
emotionally unable to accept any mechanism containing the letters 'goto' in
its name. We all have our own trauma's with Basic and goto's. And like all
other trauma's, once you are able to accept them and handle them, you're a
much stronger person, or better programmer. However, this doesnt make
everything basic did bad, and everthing euphoria does right. In some areas
they are much alike, in many areas basic should be as Euphoria, and in a few
areas Euphoria should be more like basic..
[Nice example of 'Progress' has been cut]
Ralf
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
