|
RandyBuchholz wrote: Have we developed an irrational fear of
Speak for yourself. 
Just look what I'm working on right now. Every opcode that starts with B is a branch (= goto).
; =========================================================================================
; BIOS Command selection
;
; Parameters:
; ---
;
; Returns:
; ---
; =========================================================================================
BIOS_Command: LDI hi(TxtEnterCommand)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtEnterCommand)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
CMD_Repeat: LDI 00FFH ; get RS232 input, max. timeout
STXD
SEP R4
dw RS232InSoftware
IRX ; timeout?
LDX
BZ CMD_Skip
STXD ; echo input
STXD
SEP R4
dw RS232Out
IRX
LDX
SDI 006EH ; test input = n
BZ CMD_Exit
LDX
SDI 0079H
BNZ CMD_Repeat
LDI hi(TxtNewLine) ; announce BIOS CMD
STXD
LDI lo(TxtNewLine)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
LDI hi(TxtNewLine)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtNewLine)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
LDI hi(TxtCmdTitle)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtCmdTitle)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
CMD_Prompt: LDI hi(TxtCmdPrompt) ; output the prompt
STXD
LDI lo(TxtCmdPrompt)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
LDI 00H ; get RS232 input, no timeout
STXD
SEP R4
dw RS232InSoftware
LDI TRUE
PLO RF
IRX ; echo input
LDX
STXD
STXD
SEP R4
dw RS232Out
IRX
LDX ; test input = x
SDI 0078H
BZ CMD_Exit
LDX ; test input = X
SDI 0058H
BZ CMD_Exit
LDX ; test input = h
SDI 0068H
BZ CMD_Help
LDX ; test input = H
SDI 0048H
BZ CMD_Help
CMD_Invalid: LDI hi(TxtCmdInvalid) ; error message (invalid command)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtCmdInvalid)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
BR CMD_Prompt
CMD_Help: LDI hi(TxtCmdHelp) ; help text
STXD
LDI lo(TxtCmdHelp)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
LDI hi(TxtCmdHelp1)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtCmdHelp1)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
BR CMD_Prompt
CMD_Skip: LDI hi(TxtSkipped)
STXD
LDI lo(TxtSkipped)
STXD
SEP R4
dw WriteLine
CMD_Exit: SEP R5
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no fears! 
My education is EE, and I still see registers (68xx architecture) in my head no matter what language I'm programming in. I don't actually see the code that way, it's just kind of a background image. It's amazing how many developers don't know that the only branching a CPU has is a goto.
|
|
|
|
|
Even one as unconventional as this one here.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Sacrilege! You will goto hell for such thoughts!
Oh wait. Even hell has been refactored: while (true) burnInHellForever(); 
|
|
|
|
|
Not:
Quote: while (true) burnInHellForever();
while (false) burnInHellForever();
"true" believers go to heaven! 
|
|
|
|
|
I've not used the goto keyword in any of my C/C++/C# code over the last 20 years or so.
I routinely use break (goto's more civilized brother, as it were) to exit for loops early. I do this in cases where expressing the iteration as a for loop is more appropriate for the general case, and the break handles the exceptions. I don't tend to use continue nearly as much in similar situations; I'm not sure why.
I dislike when code uses exceptions as an exotic form of iteration/flow control. My least favorite mechanism would have to be setjmp()/longjmp(), which is a very old C runtime library mechanism that fortunately doesn't see a lot of use today.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, been there. Just after starting my first "real" job in the early PC days (company upgraded the network file server to a bleeding-edge IBM AT just after I started), I had to debug a DOS BASIC program that implemented the equivalent of function/subroutine calls by saving the return line in a variable (all global, single letter optionally followed by a single digit), setting an ON ERROR GOTO for the desired function, then forcing an exception, and using the same mechanism with the saved return line value to return. Written by a nuclear physicist, no REMarks in the code - just the physicist's hand-scrawled notes. I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall that there was a way to set the ON ERROR GOTO for different target lines depending on the exception code generated, and this was used to pick which "function" to "call" at various locations in the code.
Today, he probably would have coded the entire thing as a single Excel macro with just Row-Column cell references and of course, no labels, headings, etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think it depends on the context. In C it's not so bad and I can think of a few notable examples where it is used. One instance I found rather humorous and posted in a coding 'hall of fame' page we used to have here, is in the default procedure of Windows v3.0 and the label used was "IcantBelieveIactuallyUsedAgoto." The source code of it was published in an old book by Peter Norton on windows programming.
On the other hand, I think using goto in C++ is a really bad idea. Since objects are automatically deleted when they fall out of scope, a goto could result in memory leaks if not used very carefully. As far as I am concerned this opinion is not based on fear nor is it irrational. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 1988 when I went to university to study computer science we were taught that we were never
to use goto except in one particular circumstance with COBOL.
We were strictly taught structured programming and in the first year had 2 hours of computer time each week. Most of our work was done on paper.
Fast forward to now and I am quite happy to use a return statement in code which in essence is a goto.
I think in principle it's good to learn the rules of structured programming to know when it is ok to break those rules.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: use a return statement in code which in essence is a goto.
No, it's that other thing, calling and returning from subroutines. A totally different animal, down to the machine code of the processor.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Back in 1988
GuyThiebaut wrote: the first year had 2 hours of computer time each week. Most of our work was done on paper.
I remember those days well!...being a CS major from around '87 to '89 when my part-time afternoon job turned into full-time, which meant almost no lab time. I quit school for 10 years and finally went back and finished. During my 10 year hiatus, I had very little contact with computers so coming back to it after a decade I was more than a little pleased to find that I could finally do homework at home...even in the wee hours of the morning!
Somewhere in a box, in a closet, are notebooks with handwritten C, Pascal, and Fortran homework assignments. I also have some greenbar printouts with notes/grade. Deliverables for an assignment were typically handwritten pseudo-code and/or flowchart and the printout which contained source code and results. That junk probably won't make the next move!
It amazes me now to think about how different it was to learn programming back then. Nowadays, an answer to a question is usually just a few clicks away, back then we relied on books, our own wits, and occasionally teachers/aides who sometimes knew little more than we did.
Thanks for the memories!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the post!
I am ambivalent as to whether I would rather learn CS now or back in the 80's.
Back in the 80's there was no WWW or everything that came with it(given the internet did exist with JANET being the network we had access to).
In some ways I think people have it harder nowadays because there is so much more to learn.
On the other hand a kid with a laptop and network connection can easily educate themselves, to the same level I was at when I graduated, before they even start their course in CS.
I think we expect more of graduates nowadays than we did back in the 90's when it was a given that your first few years would be on the job training and you understood that when you graduated that you basically knew very little.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
For several years programmers have had OOAD and OOP pounded into their heads, and goto is an inherently structured code construct. If you use goto in an object oriented program, you are creating spaghetti code, which is why that particular reflex exists.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have an existentialism issue with goto.
It can have its uses, very limited, but can be useful.
We have a few in some of our older legacy C code.
None in the new C++ code.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
It's not an irrational fear: it's a sensible precaution.
goto is a "shortcut" for lazy lecturers and lazy students - it positively encourages poor quality code and bad habits. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used, just that you have to understand why you aren't using it before you should be allowed to use it. It has its place (try doing assembly code, or time critical embedded C / C++ without it) but generally speaking it's a bad idea in "modern" languages which have rich flow control constructs and a set of good practices which should mean that it isn't that necessary. For example, I've been coding in C# for nine years now, and not once have I needed to use a goto, nor have I had to "fudge round" not using one.
It annoys me when it's taught early because the idiot running the course can't be bothered to teach a while, for, or foreach loop to beginners. Because once you start using a hammer, every problem looks like a nail...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
RandyBuchholz wrote: Have we developed an irrational fear of goto born out of ancient coding dogma? Or is goto inherently and absolutely evil? 
Are we asking annoying questions, just for the sake of asking?
Jumping to a label was once an improvement ovr jumping to a specific linenumber. You are doing as if using a "GOTO 40" still has a place in modern C# coding. It doesn't.
No, it's not a dogma; you don't have to believe me and can feel free to GOTO anywhere in your code - it will be your problem, not mine
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Are we asking annoying questions, just for the sake of asking?
No, not just for the sake of asking, just for the sake of annoying.
Also to see how many mind readers would jump on me for using them - even though I didn't say I used them. And don't, except in rare, low-level performance cases.
It came out of a recent discussion. I was reviewing some code someone showed me (they didn't write it) that had a goto in it. He said the code was Spaghetti Code. When I asked why, he said because it had a goto. I asked why that made it spaghetti, and all he could come up with was that he was taught that. I asked about a few other "programming truths", and had much the same response. This is good, that is bad, but I don't really know why. I started thinking about how for some things, aspects of programming have become more faith than science.
|
|
|
|
|
RandyBuchholz wrote: even though I didn't say I used them.
That's not relevant to me, you're implying they may not be bad.
RandyBuchholz wrote: This is good, that is bad, but I don't really know why. I started thinking about how for some things, aspects of programming have become more faith than science.
No, it hasn't. We have simple rules for the monkeys to follow; anyone who can actually think doesn't need them. So we can't do without that faith, since some people continously ignore everything in the manual.
While I agree that a single goto won't kill anyone, I also haven't seen any practical C# example where using one would be justified.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Add this info on your original post.
|
|
|
|
|
This old chestnut again  there are better constructs available with less risk of abuse. I've not used a goto in well over 20 years and am quite happy to leave it that way.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
'the imperative goto == the object oriented if', both have their uses and allow misuse. The degree of misuse is telling ...
|
|
|
|
|
As with any instruction in any language, improper use will get you into trouble. There are some 470,000 words in Webster's dictionary. Day-to-day we typically use less than 500. The others are there just in case but that doesn't mean we have to use them. The closer to bare metal you get, the more the higher level languages simply carry too much overhead to be practical. In resource-constrained environments you don't have the luxury of being elegant. On a 32K platform you're limited to about 3-5,000 lines of (C) code, you need to be creative and shortcuts save program space. When the need arises for an assembly stub, branches and jumps (assembly level GOTOs) are a way of life.
The GOTO instruction is a tool and like any tool, use it if you need it, but don't use it just because it's there. As it is said, if the only tool in your box is a hammer, you're constrained to build everything with nails, but if you need to nail something, it's useful (not necessary) to have a hammer.
|
|
|
|
|
This question has received lots of humorous responses, now for a slightly more serious one
Yes, we used to use gotos a lot in the old days (and I'm actually old enough to say that ).
But my feeling now is that any language where I ever feel the need to use a goto is a flawed language.
But seriously, the original "Go To Considered Harmful" [https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.pdf] was a brilliant step in providing discipline to coding to narrow the gap between algorithm design and implementation. A main idea being that gotos break the provability of correctness.
Anybody can tell you that extensive use of gotos was involved in large numbers of defects (thus quite costly).
One other point I'd like to make is that gotos can interfere with optimizers.
|
|
|
|
|
Java replaced goto with labeled break and continue.
They kept goto as a reserved keyword that you cannot use.
I wish C# had followed that model, but I suspect MS decided it was safer to follow C++ (which followed C) for legal reasons. (lawyers designing coding languages!)
C++ made some uses of goto illegal that were allowed in C due to constructor/destructor scope constraints.
|
|
|
|
|
Edsger Dijkstra (March 1968). "Go To Statement Considered Harmful". Communications of the ACM (PDF). 11 (3): 147–148. doi:10.1145/362929.362947. The unbridled use of the go to statement has as an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress. ... The go to statement as it stands is just too primitive, it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
