Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26728 comp.lang.misc:4381 Path: utzoo!censor!isgtec!robert From: robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: problems/risks ... Message-ID: <300@isgtec.UUCP> Date: 9 Mar 90 17:20:52 GMT References: <2596@gmu90x.gmu.edu> Reply-To: robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga, Ontario Lines: 27 lou@atanasoff.rutgers.edu (Lou Steinberg) writes: >jbaker@gmu90x.gmu.edu (jbaker) writes: >> But the real usefulness of requiring break in a switch statement is for >> SIMILAR treatments of similar cases, for example you may require a >> few assignments in one case before a more complicated computation which >> must be performed for several of the cases. > >ARGHHH!! That is what subroutines (and macros) are for - to handle >common code. And if your language makes them too expensive, either in >terms of run time or in terms of programmer effort, then THAT is an >even worse problem with the language than the problems with break. ARGHHH!! Why are we constantly bombarded with people who do not understand that PEFORMANCE IS SOMETIMES AN ISSUE!!!!! I was under the impression that C's function calls are, relative to other high level languages, very inexpensive, (is this still true?) in which case if you are using fall-through to gain speed (which I have done several times) there is probably a good reason! I'm tired of people blithly saying that "such and such is dangerous, and hence should be removed from the language" when I need such things to get interactive performance. How many people posting to this group(s) are actually using C in a production environment? Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne {...uunet!mnetor,...utzoo}!lsuc!isgtec!robert