• I don't trust programmers who knock #define | goto.

    From Jeff-Relf.Me@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 1 09:46:44 2021
    XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics

    I don't trust programmers who knock #define | goto.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Branimir Maksimovic@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 1 18:19:02 2021
    XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics

    On 2021-10-01, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote:
    I don't trust programmers who knock #define | goto.
    I think you are |Idiot, SO?

    --

    7-77-777
    Evil Sinner!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Branimir Maksimovic@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Oct 2 10:54:05 2021
    XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics

    On 2021-10-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 02/10/2021 03:11, rbowman wrote:
    On 10/01/2021 10:46 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
    I don't trust programmers who knock #define | goto.


    Each has it's uses. I'm amused when the evil goto is covered with
    syntactic sugar like try {} catch{} or convoluted blocks of code. Being
    an old assembler guy I know there's a JMP luring in the bushes.


    Yup!


    I think the purists were scarred in their youth by computed goto.


    I think that they simply got conned by compSci twits into think that
    because block structure is arguably better, gotos were spawn of the devil

    if(something==something else) //CMP, A,B
    { // JNE ELSE1
    } //JMP ENDIF1, *the hidden goto*
    else { //ELSE1:
    }
    // ENDIF1:

    CompScis want to think in terms of elegant structure, software engineers
    want to write portable machine code to make best use of the processor.


    ++++++++




    --

    7-77-777
    Evil Sinner!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)