Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC)
Message-ID: <11268@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 10 May 89 03:01:17 GMT
References: <1791@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <1436@onion.reading.ac.uk> <1814@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <698@occrsh.ATT.COM> <852@umecs.cs.umu.se>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 31

In article <852@umecs.cs.umu.se> christer@rachel.UUCP (Christer
Ericson) writes:

>I think that the above code says it all... I would like to know if ANYONE
>think Dijkstras program is easier to read [which IS the question, right?]
>than Rubins?

First of all, whether the program is easier to read or not is only
*part* of the question.  Some of the other factors involved are:

 * In a large program using goto's (although it is obviously not a
   problem in the case of a very small piece of code like the examples
   that have been provided), it tends to be more hazardous to make
   changes and corrections to the code without screwing something up.
 * Many compilers (as has already been pointed out) have trouble
   optimizing code that has goto's in it.  They therefore don't try to
   optimize, which results in less efficient programs.
   
>Go read the original articles NOW!

Personally, I think it is quite possible for someone to conduct an
intelligent discussion about goto's without having read the sources to
which you refer, although they might help.

Anyone who has programmed both in Applesoft BASIC and C, for example,
might have a lot to say about the relative merits of goto's :-)

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