On 5/20/06, Robert Klemme <shortcutter / googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2006/5/19, Jake McArthur <jake.mcarthur / gmail.com>:
> > On May 19, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> >
> > > 2006/5/19, Jake McArthur <jake.mcarthur / gmail.com>:
> > >> Just because many people would abuse it does not mean that a
> > >> programmer who could use it cleanly and elegantly should be unable
> > >> to.
> > >
> > > Sometimes less is more.
> >
> > But that's kind of my point. To an experienced programmer, being able
> > to use a goto can amount to being able to cut a ton of complexity out
> > of his code.
> >
> > Issues like this are not black and white. It's kind of close-minded
> > to simply rule a tool out because that tool is difficult to use
> > correctly. Should people stop playing musical instruments, using
> > manual cameras, and driving cars? Well, that last one is arguable,
> > but my point stands.
>
> This was not my point: my point was, that the harm done with GOTO far
> outweights the benefits and that more is gained by removing it from
> languages than would be won be keeping it.  Of course you can find for
> every tool an application case where it's ideal but that doesn't
> proove anything.

   Nowadays I could only find goto useful in controlling the error
path flow inside the kernel. Not Ruby's Kernel, but the OS kernel,
where 'normal' stack unwinding is usually too expensive. But nobody
uses Ruby for kernel programming, right ? :)

>
> robert
>
> --
> Have a look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fussel-foto/
>
>


-- 
If it's there, and you can see it, it's real.
If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual.
If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent.
If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it.