----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Gravagno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:54 AM Subject: RE: [U2] more serious notes on GOTO
<cut> > Rather than completely re-writing client code to > my sense of what nice code looks like it's occasionally much easier to GOTO > to get out of a jam that someone else created. >From my experience working with a team of different developers this is the worst possible and a very selfish scenario a developer might choose to follow. This is why in many cases the longer code exist the worse it is getting. GOTOing out of a jam simply add more garbage to the pot of garbage the code you describe is. I always insist that developers understand the code they change before making any change and that the code is getting better not worse after they made that always urgent and small modification to it. > - Because in the internal bowels of the BASIC compiler and runtime we find > that all GOSUBs are actually GOTOs with a little extra code. The only > difference is that on a GOSUB you push the address of the next instruction > onto a stack before the jump. Any compiler from any programming languages do that. But it does not mean that we program in assembler all the time, does it? > - Because almost all languages have some form of GOTO and we'd see as many > "why isn't there a GOTO" here if it wasn't in UniBasic. Java does not have it. ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
