Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gotos
Message-ID: <7689@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 14 Apr 88 21:56:06 GMT
References: <1988Apr11.201934.20594@utzoo.uucp> <451@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <7681@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2586@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 21

In article <2586@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>Spencer especially took that as a endorsement of liberal use of GOTO at
>Megatest.

That was also the impression I got when I read the same posting.
That doesn't mean that it was intended to convey that impression,
but as we should all well know by now it is easy to be misinterpreted.

I don't think I have accused that company of shoddy workmanship or
urged boycotting its products.  I've been defending Henry's right
to draw such conclusions for himself.  It was rather tactless to
post those conclusions publicly, but originally I don't think Henry
was really urging a product boycott either, just remarking on what
he thought the likely effect on product quality would be from what
he perceived as the corporate attitude.

I'm glad to hear that that company (whose name I don't recall) is
not committed to indiscriminate use of GOTO.  I also agree with those
who say that GOTO use is not the only measure of software merit.

Now, can we please stop misunderstanding each other and get back
to squabbling about TECHNICAL issues?