home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: misery.millcomm.com!usenet
- From: danhicks@millcomm.com (Dan Hicks)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.apl
- Subject: Re: GOTO controversy
- Date: 3 Apr 1996 15:21:36 GMT
- Organization: Millennium Communications, Inc.
- Message-ID: <4ju520$oq5@misery.millcomm.com>
- References: <314FB5F5.259B@simi.is> <3151B47F.70FD@connix.com> <4jo5t6$1ki@socrates.moe.edu.sg> <4jq2en$g2q@news.cais.com> <AD87DB279668D9F74@mcdiala15.it.luc.edu>
- Reply-To: danhicks@millcomm.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-06.roch.millcomm.com
- X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.2
-
- In <AD87DB279668D9F74@mcdiala15.it.luc.edu>, VArase@varase.it.luc.edu (Verne Arase) writes:
- >I avoid recursion in _any_ production code, no matter how I can minimize
- >the stack frame.
- >
- >Recursion can make for visually appealing and simplified code, but in real
- >terms they're nothing but trouble unless you can absolutely positively
- >guarantee a finite, known level stack depth.
-
- I use recursion where recursion is appropriate. (In my mind, using
- recursion to avoid a simple loop ISN'T appropriate, though.)
- Unconditionally avoiding recursion is just as ill-advised as abusing it
- -- some of the worst code I've seen is code where recursion would have
- made a big difference (had the programmer understood the concept).
-
- On the other hand, recursing is something I do a lot of, fairly
- unconditionally. 8-)
-
- Dan Hicks
- http://www.millcomm.com/~danhicks/
-
-