Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC)
Keywords: Guinness, phlegm, mackerel, intestines
Message-ID: <11211@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 8 May 89 05:29:35 GMT
References: <1791@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <1436@onion.reading.ac.uk> <1814@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <11136@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <24047@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <11197@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <24127@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 24
Xref: utzoo misc.misc:6005 comp.misc:5995

In article <24127@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
>Please run this one past me again. Since I'm an historian and not a
>programmer my mind must work differently. If you are doing it only once
>and only micro-seconds are involved, the clearest form should prevail
>(a subroutine rather than a goto). If you're going to do it a couple of
>billion times and the function is a time pig, I can see sacrificing
>readability to efficiency.

You're right, my answer was not well thought out.

>Of course, the logic stated in the previous paragraph would not hold if
>(a) you write perfect code the first time and will never need to look
>at it again; (b) only persons with your level of brilliance and your
>programming experience ever look at your code.
>
>Since your affiliaton is MIT, I must presume that both conditions hold.

Even if my posting was wrong, at least it was not obnoxious.  It seems
to me that this comment is, IMHO.

Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				410 Memorial Drive, No. 223F
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Cambridge, MA 02139-4318
Office: 617-253-4261			      Home: 617-225-8218