Re: GOTO's
From: R.Lewis (h.lewis_at_connect-2.co.uk)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: mc: "Re: Art of Electronics Rave - NON Politix! :-)"
- Previous message: Spehro Pefhany: "Re: Editor"
- In reply to: Reg Edwards: "GOTO's"
- Next in thread: Joel Kolstad: "Re: GOTO's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:41:49 -0000
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csjog1$c45$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> GOTO's are a positive menace. Any language which allows them is a disgrace
> to mankind's considerable acheivements in that direction.
>
> They constitute abandonment of essential discipline to complete chaos in
> program structure. Helpful only to lazy, soltitary, so-called programmers,
> obtaining money under false pretences, who are unable to remember what its
> all about the next day. But GOTO's are wicked, useless, obstructions to
> bug-finding and maintenance operations carried out by poor unfortunate
later
> workers who get all the blame for the enormous costs involved.
>
> I first went on a 2-day computer programming course around 1962. Language
> was un-named. But there was no GOTO. Never since been on such a course.
The
> computer was contained in a 5-foot, by 3-foot, by 2-foot case using
discrete
> transistors. About as sophisticated as a present-day pocket calculator.
The
> input/output device was a teleprinter using ticker-tape.
>
> So I ought to know!
>
> At the age of 79 and still programming, my favourite language is still the
> well-disciplined Pascal. It doesn't have a GOTO instruction except the
> in-offensive GoTo(X,Y), where X,Y is a screen coordinate ready for writing
> or printing.
>
> The most easy to understand language, of course, is Plain English. We are
> still waiting for a compiler. Our Eastern friends, the hard-working
> Chinese, look as though they may beat us to it!
> ----
> Reg
Nothing wrong with Pascal - it just aint that popular- but it most certainly
does allow conditional operations. (The odd prog.may be constructed as a
simple linear, single step, coding but they will be few and far between).
Just because something isn't labelled as a GOTO it doesn't mean that a GOTO
has not been constructed.
However if your understanding of the processes involved is so poor you
probably think that GOTO is unnescessary without realising why it isn't so.
A number of silly fantasies such as this grew up in the very early days of
software.
It is possible to never ever use the word NO in the english language (should
it be so desired).
It is not practically possible to avoid expressing a negative reply to a
question,request, etc.
There may, under different circumstances, be more erudite ways of saying NO,
but not always, and *always* it is a construccted NO.
One must be carefull that the construction is not the more complex and hence
the more prone to mis-interpretation (or should I say erroneous
programming).
Regards,
- Next message: mc: "Re: Art of Electronics Rave - NON Politix! :-)"
- Previous message: Spehro Pefhany: "Re: Editor"
- In reply to: Reg Edwards: "GOTO's"
- Next in thread: Joel Kolstad: "Re: GOTO's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
