Xref: utzoo misc.misc:6203 comp.misc:6119
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!versatc!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC)
Message-ID: <554@laic.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 00:29:14 GMT
References: <1791@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <1436@onion.reading.ac.uk> <1814@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <2848@cps3xx.UUCP> <1989May13.201706.12649@ziebmef.uucp>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Reply-To: darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson)
Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park
Lines: 15

>   Still, IMHO (for the second time) the use of GOTOs should be
>minimized whenever possible, since it generally does lead to harder-to-
>read programs which are unmaintainable by anyone other than the programmer
>(and often not even maintainable by him/her more than a couple of weeks
>later)!

Another point.  GOTO's don't get along well with optimizers.  Either the
optimizer gives up on some optimizations, or it spends lots of extra
time.  Of course, in C, a break or continue cause the same problems to
a lesser degree.  Optimizers can usually do more with languages like
Pascal and ADA, because loops are easily recognized, a FOR statement
isn't shorthand for a WHILE statement, etc.

Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.