misc, Using GOTO

I've been following the debate on GOTO elsewhere here in c.l.b.m and
in alt.lang.basic and it has been pleasing to note that a consensus
seems to have been reached. (Unlike in the unhappy religious divide
over opening eggs as documented in "Gulliver's Travels". :-)

If I may be so bold as to summarise the conclusion here as I see it:

One should use GOTO when it is necessary and one should
avoid it when it is not needed.


Cheers, Phred.

--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:31 GMT, XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Phred)



I don't think so. It seems that the guys who think it is bad to use
goto's just are not required to produce large, complex commercial
applications any time, but just sample programs where they get to
dictate the logic to their own ends.

They will always think they are better programmers than anyone who
knows the value of simplified logic, because they think it is
important to always demonstrate how intricate they can make their
bird-nested, indented, multiply-conditioned if-then-else-do-while-not-
too-complicated loops.

There is nothing anyone could do other than post far too much code
here to convince them otherwise, and they will wiggle out of doing it
anyway. You could shove their noses in it and they still would not
accept it.

So why bother?

I'm happy enough doing what I do with the tools I have available.

Just because I don't have the luxury to devote my life to trying to
convince these dipshits otherwise doesn't mean they are right, or that
a consensus seems to have been reached.


That just shifts the argument to who is to decide if it is needed,
like the "who is a best programmer" bullshit.

I use it because I know it is necessary in my work, and I use it
because it is the best construction to use in the situations I use it.
I do not bother to count how often, but I know it's a lot.

I don't really care how sloppy others can be with goto's or any other
logic construction - it doesn't affect me.

There doesn't really seem to be anything I could or would want to
expend the effort to do to affect the way progarmming languages grow
and develop in the future.

So I stopped arguing this point because I just don't give a fuck
anymore - not because a consensus has been reached.

You are terribly wrong to assume that has happened.

I assume your comment applies to me? You do know a little about my
background, I suppose? Sheesh, if you are going to spout nonsense you
might at least attempt to make it *plausible* nonsense!

I can't make up my mind whether you're a troll (in which case I
shouldn't be replying at all) or whether you actually believe what you
write.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

You couldn't possibly be farther off the mark. It's precisely in large,
complex programs where GOTOs are the most harmful.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 9/6/07 11:51 AM, in article XXXX@XXXXX.COM ,





Gee, I really have to agree with this! I've seen such code, where they've
programmed around their ass to get to their elbow in order to actually avoid
using a GOTO construct, just because it is bad! You can't tell me that the
issue hasn't been completely overblown. It has produced hard-to-read code
where often you have to pause to consider the scope of certain constructs
such as leave, begin, exit or even those "indented, multiply-conditioned
if-then-else-do-while-not-too-complicated loops".

...


I use it a lot in environments that don't support better constructs. In
those that do, I use other constructs WHERE THEY ARE NATURAL, and GOTO WHERE
IT IS NATURAL - usually within the scope of a block of code. And I like to
factor things out to subprograms (and functions, if they are available) if
my blocks of code become routines in of themselves...

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:08:11 -0700, " XXXX@XXXXX.COM "




Not really - I have been ignoring most of your recent posts as
irrelavent marketing propaganda.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:08:11 -0700, " XXXX@XXXXX.COM "



Not really - I have been ignoring most of your recent posts as
irrelavent marketing propaganda.

Sorry - I cut out the wrong paragraph before - wouldn't want you to
get the wrong idea.

This is a debate of people (all programmers) of computer languages.
Some of you try to make programs for a living. If you try to sell it than
...

I am the one to buy them?

Well, I DEMAND GOTO!!!
Otherwise you can keep your language.

I am using and not making those academic programs you're making
If I wanted to buy a program to program, I would NOT buy yours if its lacks
GOTO.
I am NOT a professional programmer.

We (the guys you're trying to sell to) don't buy difficult stuff for fun.

PLEASE give us GOTO..... GOTO...GOTO

Gordon


"Phred" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > schreef in bericht

This is a group about the BASIC language. The BASIC language includes
GOTO as a fundamental part. I do not see how a language not including
GOTO could possibly be called BASIC. So I don't really understand the
point you are making.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

I don't mind local GOTO's as long as the target is within a couple
dozen lines. Other than that, sometimes an "error abort" type of GOTO
is OK.

I absolutely hate scrolling for 5 minutes trying to find the target of
a GOTO, however! And I lose my original place in the process so that
is very frustrating.

Eric

Well, Mr. Dijkstra was a teacher. He had to read (and correct) the BASIC
programs his
students wrote. At first he didn't teached BASIC. He was not able to follow
some of his students work. So, in stead of good teaching he blamed BASIC and
GOTO. Now, in The Netherlands today we buy programs. We don't
program anymore nor do we teach programming anymore, at least no BASIC.

Gordon.

"Phred" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > schreef in bericht

The indentation of a large structured block can also require
scrolling for 5 minutes to find one end or the other. At least
with a label, you can search and find all the occurences with
almost any editor.


IMHO. YMMV.

And when teaching or using Minimal Basic, Tiny Basic, or any
Basic similar to the original 6 versions Dartmouth Basic, that
means using a lot of GOTO's, since that is the only way to
express many common control structures.

One might say that the Minimal Basic syntax should never be
taught; but, taken to a purist extreme, that might lead one to
believe that nothing resembling Basic should ever be taught,
given the many advances in software engineering and language
design.

Unfortunately Scheme, Logo, Smalltalk, Java, Erlang, etc. have
never had anywhere near as much success at introducing non-CS
and engineering students to programming. Lotus macros and
variations on "Street" Basic are some of the only proven and
successfully deployed programming solutions for this audience.


IMHO. YMMV.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:10 -0700, " XXXX@XXXXX.COM "




Gordon,

Don't let this sneaky bastard fool you into thinking that he is
supportive of GOTO's, either in BBC Basic, or in general.

Here are a couple of quotes from his previous posts on the topic:

====================
"I can't recollect there being any consideration of the ANSI Standard
when the BBC specified what was to become BBC BASIC in 1980/1981.
Either we didn't know about it or didn't care (or both)!"

"The *only* reason GOTO was specified for BBC BASIC was for
compatibility with existing programs (usually written for some variety
of 8K Microsoft BASIC), and of course that only required support for
line numbers. I don't think any version of BASIC had labels in those
days. The assumption was that any program written specifically for
BBC BASIC would not use GOTOs."
====================

If you read his other posts, he has numerous quotes showing how his
product pretends to support the use of GOTO, to satisfy the many
people like yourself, but actually has extremely limited support, and
wishes not to provide even that.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:02:47 -0700, "R.Nicholson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >



Geez, man - sounds like you are thinking of leaving the dark side.

The scrolling I hate most with the deeply-nested crap is more sideways
than vertical, hahaha.