Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re^2: Oh noooooo!!
Message-ID: <11132@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 22 Sep 89 21:34:11 GMT
References: <7598@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <34566@apple.Apple.COM> <556@tigger.planet.bt.co.uk> <33279@ism780c.isc.com> <10756@dasys1.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <10756@dasys1.UUCP> rpb@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Brady) writes:
>Sorry, but Dijkstra was wrong. How can you attempt to write a program that
>will be optimized in machine code by using constructs that are alien to 
>machine code?

Actually, most Algol-like languages can be better optimized with less
effort if GOTOs are outlawed.  It has almost nothing to do with whether
the machine language supports PC reloads (aka branch instructions).