When I started here, the 'standard' was (mostly) free-form mix of goto,
perform thru, etc.  Some of it is still running.  My 1st full-time
programming job was largely to debug this stuff after the orig authors left.
Learned a LOT ;).

But the worst of the bunch was the guy who tried to do structured
programming and didn't use goto or perform-thru.  ALL of this stuff was
re-written from scratch long ago, because we couldn't follow it, and we got
tired of the endless endless-loops.

Most maintainable was the guy who performed only sections, and used go-to
only within a section.  Not what the textbooks say, but a model of clarity
compared to the others.  So that has been the 'new' standard for over 20
years.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clogg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:39
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] GO TO -- scary statistics...


Tracy Pierce wrote (among other things):
>...you can't make spaghetti code without goto.

Oh yes you can!  I have seen horribly confusing code that didn't (overtly)
use GOTOs.  I say "overtly" because as I and others have pointed out, it's
possible to use a PERFORM command to accomplish a GOTO.  As has also been
pointed out, the PERFORM...THRU is also an excellent tool for creating
spaghetti code.  If GOTO-less code is written WELL, it is indeed free of
spaghetti and other forms of confusion, but the idea that removal of GOTOs
alone is sufficient to accomplish that is a notion with which I can't agree.

Regards,
John Clogg

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *