home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
- From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
- Subject: Re: Hardware Support for Numeric Algorithms
- Message-ID: <1992Nov12.202001.9844@newshost.lanl.gov>
- Date: 12 Nov 92 20:20:01 GMT
- References: <1992Nov6.230030.16637@leland.Stanford.EDU> <TMB.92Nov7233431@orac.idiap.ch> <BxDH7G.8Cn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <id.DDWU.KZ4@ferranti.com>
- Sender: news@newshost.lanl.gov
- Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <id.DDWU.KZ4@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
- |> In article <BxDH7G.8Cn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
- |> > Those who rewrote my code without gotos had to work to do it.
- |>
- |> Who cares?
- |>
- |> The goal, after all, isn't eliminating the gotos. It's producing maintainable
- |> code. The version I wrote from your code had just as many gotos (some were
- |> switch statements, but it's a 5 minute job to convert them all back and
- |> forth), but it was a lot more readable and maintainable. And I probably spent
- |> less time on it than you spent on the code in the first place.
- |>
- |> Frankly, your coding style as we've seen it on the net is so bad nobody can
- |> take seriously any claim that minor syntax changes will make an atom of
- |> difference to your productivity.
-
- And yet, You're the one who just finished defending the use of *raw*
- pointers in the same way that Dr. Rubin uses *raw* GOTOs. You obviously
- *understand* the concept of replacing such monstrosities with legible
- structures, yet you support doing so only in *one* case. Why?
-
- --
- J. Giles
-
