Xref: utzoo misc.misc:6056 comp.misc:6037
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!philmtl!philabs!ttidca!hollombe
From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC)
Message-ID: <4396@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 9 May 89 20:31:59 GMT
References: <1791@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <1436@onion.reading.ac.uk> <1814@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <24044@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <2861@cps3xx.UUCP> <1745@wasatch.utah.edu>
Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath)
Organization: The Cat Factory
Lines: 23

In article <1745@wasatch.utah.edu> cetron@wasatch.utah.edu (Edward J Cetron) writes:
}	This entire GOTO debate seems to be indicative of the quality of 
}programmers currently available today.  To them, STRUCTURE is EVERYTHING.
}They've even forgotten (or never learned WHY structured concepts are good).
}But MOST IMPORTANTLY the forget that somewhere, somehow, a computer HAS to
}execute these programs. Before I ever was taught about programming, I was
}taught how the computers worked at the machine code level.  If once only
}considers the computer at the HLL level, no matter how good and optimizing
}compiler you have, you can still write stuff that is damned inefficient. 
}
} [ etc. in the above vein ]

When I'm concerned about machine efficiency, I write in assembler. (I've
written a _lot_ of assembler on some projects).  In my current
environment, I'm concerned about portability.

There are always tradeoffs.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe