Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!ogicse!plains!tsmith
From: tsmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Timothy Lyle Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Gotos are ok (Was Re: IMPLEMENT GOTO ACROSS MODULES IN TURBO PASCAL??)
Message-ID: <7612@plains.NoDak.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 18:48:46 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.031015.15282@cs.mcgill.ca> <1991Jan10.122222.1013@uwasa.fi> <1991Jan16.005523.28337@syacus.acus.oz>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo
Lines: 111


In article <1991Jan16.005523.28337@syacus.acus.oz>
ian@syacus.acus.oz (Ian Joyner) writes:
>Prof. Timo Salmi writes-
>
>>No gotos is just a mumbo jumbo myth by programming purists.
>>Of course it is often desirable for the sake of clarity to avoid
>>gotos, but this stigma that has been ingrained and incantated to by
>>the self-chosen guards of programming purity is ridiculous. Welcome
>>to the real world where programming is needed because something
>>needs to be performed, and where the format of code is secondary.
>>Don't confuse the ends and means.

  I don't believe that the format of the code is secondary, it should give
some indication of the function of the code.  Granted that this is not
always possible for a given language.  If you can figure out how to do
something in a sloppy manner then there is most likely another way to do
it which not so sloppy.  The other way of writing it should not be so
difficult as you already have a solution to the problem.

>
>
>Sure gotos work very well. The problem is they are too powerful, and thus
>subject to undisciplined use. Last year I was working in a language with
>the only control structures being -
>
>if <boolean> <statement>
>and
>goto <label>
>
>All my code that I wrote in this language used these to simulate well
>disciplined structures of -
>
>if <boolean> <compound>
>else <compound>
>
>
>The argument for gotos is based in the mind set that programmers are such
>mindless bookkeepers, but then have the super human capability to be
>able to get themselves out of the mess that they get themselves in.
>
>Programming must be elevated to a craft, where the programmers can take
>care and pride in what they do. The advocates of undisciplined goto
>usage are undermining our progress towards this goal, a goal which
>ultimately produces software which does what it is supposed to do,
>--
>Ian Joyner                                     ACSNet:
ian@syacus.oz

Mr. Joyner, IMHO your argument is seriously flawed.  If I understand you
correctly you are advocating disciplined programming and you consider the
use of gotos to be undisciplined.  My opinion is based of the following
facts and assumptions:

      Fact: A programming language is a collection of tools that can
            be used to solve problems.

            The reason that a language is a collection of tools rather
            than a tool unto itself is that you do not have to use all
            the elements of the language to solve every problem.  Thus
            the if-then-else structure is an element as is the goto.

      Assumption:
            The user of a tool will understand it better and be more
            skilled with it by using it.  It the tool is never used then
            the user will never understand it.

            This is an assumption because not everybody is created equal
            in this case.  Some people will understand a tools purpose
            with the first use while others will never understand it.

      Assumption:
            Discipline is learned, it can not be forced.  It is based on
            understanding the environment in which the person must have
            discipline.

            This assumption is based on personal experience.

  Given these assumptions and fact, I again state that IMHO your position
is flawed.  The existence of the goto in any language is irrelevant to the
argument of whether the goto is a good tool or a bad tool, it is just a
tool.  Just as it is foolish to used a nuclear bomb to crack a peanut there
are places where one should not use a goto.

  However if you want to remove the goto from a language you should be able
to prove that it will never be needed, that the function it serves can be
completely covered by another existing tool or tools.  You can not add
another tool to replace it.

  If you teach people how to use a tool then they have a chance to become
familiar with it's use.  It these same people are unfamiliar with the tool
they will not become familiar with it's use and will not understand the
tool.  Without understanding there can be no discipline.

  If you can teach people to use gotos in a disciplined fashion then you
will find that the goto is a very useful and important part of any language.
You must remember however, if a person is not familiar in the use of a tool
that person can not teach another to be familiar with the tool unless the
student is quicker than the teacher.  On a similar line, discipline can not
be taught by a teacher who is undisciplined unless the student views the
teacher's undiscipline ways with distaste and strives to be disciplined so
as not to be like the teacher.

     respectively

        Tim Smith
-- 
Tim Smith  
Minard 300                      UUCP:        ...!uunet!plains!tsmith
North Dakota State University,  BITNET:      tsmith@plains.bitnet
Fargo, ND  58105                INTERNET:    tsmith@plains.NoDak.edu