Subject:
|
Re: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:35:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1029 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ralph Hempel wrote:
> > I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm going to come right out and say that
> > goto's are not a bad thing, contrary to popular belief...
>
> <snipped rant>
>
> > There. Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my pet peeves.
>
> And as a longtime embedded guy myself, I agree with Mark. It's the old
> sharp tools and dull craftsman thing.
>
> In the hands of a practiced expert, the goto can be a thing of beauty
> and can make the code more readable, which is what we all want if we
> ever need to figure out the code.
>
> I'm guessing you have a similar view on the statement:
>
> "A function should have one and only one exit point" :-)
Ralph,
I think it is a stupid rule!
>
> Ralph
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
| (...) The thing everyone has forgotton about the "one exit point" rule is that it applies to MACHINE CODE PROGRAMMING - not high level languages. This single misunderstanding has resulted in more convoluted and illegible code than I care to (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
| (...) <snipped rant> (...) And as a longtime embedded guy myself, I agree with Mark. It's the old sharp tools and dull craftsman thing. In the hands of a practiced expert, the goto can be a thing of beauty and can make the code more readable, which (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
