Re: Goto (Was Re: Open Source)
CChris wrote:
> Simple examples like this always convert nicely. "hello world" programs almost
> always look simple in any language. Then real programming comes in and makes
> a difference.
>
> etc...
>
> CChris
Well said CChris.
I'm a firm beleiver that development speed and corelation between
design and code are paramount traits of a quality programming language.
While I do not advocate the use of goto, debating it's validity based on
'poor programming habit' is an extremely moot point. Good programmers will write
good code
and bad programmers will write bad code, regardless of what tools are available
to them.
I see no reason why it is any of my business if someone else chooses to use it.
I still have the choice if I want to use their code or not.
For the end-user, it's pretty much irrelevant what language is used to
create a program, nevermind what constructs are used in the underlying code.
The issue of goto is more of a debate on coding style than anything to do with
practical programming. In my mind it equates to the same argument as code
formatting.
I do think that the use of goto should be discouraged, but it is not my place to
dictate
how others should write their code.
The real issue is 'does goto belong in Euphoria?'
My thoughts are that we should address the desire for arbitrary jumps as much as
possible
with high level constructs first, before we consider the addition of goto.
I don't feel that goto really fits into the Euphoria language.
In a nutshell, I beleive implementing goto before we explore more appropriate,
higher level constructs, is putting the cart before the horse.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
