To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.funOpen lugnet.off-topic.fun in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Fun / 5577
5576  |  5578
Subject: 
Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.fun
Date: 
Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:38:06 GMT
Reply-To: 
JSPROAT@nospamIO.COM
Viewed: 
643 times
  
Steve Bliss wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Sproaticus wrote:
10 PRINT "GOTO'S SUCK!"
Is GOTO alright if it's spelled HREF?

Isn't an HREF more like a GOSUB?  There's a call (okay, return) stack, and you
can ride it all the way back to the first page.  And GOSUBs are okay.  I give
them my Official Stamp of Approval.  :-,

Or you could take the pont of view that a HREF is like a spawn() call,
blocking subprocess until the subprocess calls exit().

But yeah, I was a bit harsh about GOTO.  It is a useful call, esp. in the
lower-level languages like assembler.  But after making the transition from
flow-oriented programming to procedure-oriented programming (and then again
into object-oriented), GOTO just makes the code that much more difficult to
understand and in some places wreaks havoc with the call stack.  I remember a
stack *underflow* problem I had with Turbo Pascal once...

Cheers,
- jsproat

--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Uh, two.  Including this one.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
 
(...) Is GOTO alright if it's spelled HREF? Steve (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

48 Messages in This Thread:

















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR