Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!vax5!btcx
From: btcx@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Structured languages don't exist! (Was: Re: DO loops, anyone?)
Message-ID: <18178@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 16 Mar 89 19:47:38 GMT
References: <1317@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Sender: news@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Reply-To: btcx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Brian T Carcich)
Organization: Space Sciences, Cornell University
Lines: 31

In article <1317@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes:
>...
>It's not failure to end every loop with its own CONTINUE that is the
>problem.  It is (surprise!) GOTO's are harmful.

Well, not quite.

Now, I'm not a GOTO freak, and I learned to only goto CONTINUE's, but
does anybody realize the origin of the anti-GOTO religion?  And how the above
statement is a misrepresentation of that origin? (see BTW below) 

It's not GOTO's that are harmful, but POOR USE OF goto's that's harmful.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our GOTO's, but in our selves.

or, more generally,

There is no such thing as a structured programming language, only
structured programmers.

I don't believe I actually had to post this in .fortran! :-)
Yes, i HAD to; I can't resist statements by the True Believers. :-)

Go back to .c or .pascal or .modula or ... where you belong.  
leave us dinosaurs alone!

BTW, the origin of anti-GOTOism was an early 60's paper that proposed/observed
an inverse correlation of programMER quality and frequency of GOTO use. 
N.B. the criticism was aimed at *programmers*, NOT goto's. 

I have just said the same thing 4 times, pardon me for repeating myself.