From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Thu Aug  8 14:10:53 2002
Return-Path: <ilug-admin@linux.ie>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716984412E
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu,  8 Aug 2002 08:32:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:32:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from webnote.net (mail.webnote.net [193.120.211.219]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g78CCw201529 for
    <jm-ilug@JMASON.ORG>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:12:58 +0100
Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    webnote.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29778 for <jm-ilug@jmason.org>;
    Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:16:10 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11413; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:14:50 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host root@localhost [127.0.0.1]
    claimed to be lugh
Received: from byron.heanet.ie (byron.heanet.ie [193.1.219.90]) by
    lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11378 for <ilug@linux.ie>;
    Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:14:41 +0100
Received: from dhcp169.heanet.ie ([193.1.219.169] helo=heanet.ie) by
    byron.heanet.ie with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17clGl-0003RN-00 for
    ilug@linux.ie; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:15:55 +0100
Message-Id: <3D52537D.8000104@heanet.ie>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:18:21 +0100
From: Dave Wilson <dave.wilson@heanet.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0)
    Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ilug@linux.ie
Subject: Re: [ILUG] slashdot EW Dijkstra humor
References: <200208081032.LAA09312@lugh.tuatha.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie
Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group <ilug.linux.ie>
X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie

> Interesting. I've always wondered about things 'considered' to be bad. 
> Example the GOTO, most languages support a goto of some sort, so are gotos really bad?

Oh goodie. My final year project rears its head :-)

> Is a loop or a recursive call actually any better than a goto 
> or is the goto used as a kind of common enemy of 
> programming syntax

Much as I would like to answer an unqualified "yes", I must admit: if 
you already code in a style that makes heavy use of GOTOs, coding in the 
same style with GOSUBs or function calls does not improve code. Much the 
same as when the manuals on "modular coding" said to write modules that 
would fit on a single sheet of computer paper, lots of coders proceeded 
to split their code into arbitrary 60-line chunks. :)

However, "Go-to considered harmful" points out that to analyse (==debug) 
code, you need to be able to tell what the point of execution is, and 
what the values of the variables are at that point. This is an easy(tm) 
job if the code uses assignment, if(), for() and functions, but not if 
it uses GOTO. (See http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD215.PDF 
for the full letter).

Despite being one of Dijkstra's brain-damaged children who learned BASIC 
at an early age :) I never use GOTO anymore (or any of its bastard 
offspring like break, continue, fudged function calls with sleight of 
hand in the variables). My code is longer than it might be if I had used 
GOTO at a critical, handy point. However, code is a bit like networks - 
you always end up adding bits on where you didn't expect to - and the 
benefit is felt when another person (like myself but in three months 
time) is modifying or debugging it and doesn't have to go through the 
hassle of dealing with the impact of the GOTO.

Dave


-- 
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie


