goto... Who uses it?
-
His second stop was the bar, then other places and to write this post. I am assuming he is still enjoying the effects of the local bar. :)
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
-
The goto is not required, you can always skip around with variable but sometime it's the best solution. In this example the goto is a clear simple example, remove it and you introduce less readable and more complexity.
function BigFunction() {
for (int i =0; i < 100; i++) {
while(true) {
if (...) {
goto DO_SOMETHING_AT_THE_END;
}
}
}DO_SOMETHING_AT_THE_END:
DoSomething();
}I think this example is pretty much the only justfiable use these days. I'm not ashamed to say that I use it this way occassionally. I much prefer that to deep nesting and multiple function returns. Multiple function returns often introduce bugs that could be avoided by using goto. But I'm wary of the religious wars against using goto so when I do use it I make sure I could justifty it in a code review.
-
Been writing code since '85. Never used a goto in production code and I would have serious issue[s] with anyone who did.
-
Been writing code since '85. Never used a goto in production code and I would have serious issue[s] with anyone who did.
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
GOTO is a vital tool for programmers wanting to develop high performance applications. In my primary commercial product (a GUI engine used by other programmers) I use it over a dozen times. Even the likes of Alexander Stepanov consider it useful, so I am in good company.
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
Its been beaten into me over the years not to use GOTO's. Programming languages differ, but most have some sort of if / then / else that makes clearer programming than goto. Loops with leave / break statements, etc.. Even Fortran has these (I used it before it did)... I find indenting with GOTO replacements clearer to follow than hunting for GOTO's and their destination. Esp if you have huge functions. Even DOS batch scripting has if / then statements. Few years ago I cleaned up some messy batch scripts to make them readable...
-
No they are not. Break is designed to allow breaking out of a construct in a predictable, limited way. OK, in generated code, the result is still a branch, but one is much less likely to lead to abuses of control flow, particularly with later maintenance.
Point well taken. The misuse of Branches (or Jumps or whatever a given syntax may use) is probably one of the factors that led to the abandonment of assembly language; my true love. ICEs with a good 32 instruction backward trace capability will almost always provide the debug needed. But that's a moot point these days. The "consensus" has decreed, and so I (and thousands of others) suffer. Sad.
-
That ternary cannot throw. You're thinking of Java and its .equals nonsense. == won't throw for a null.
Learned something new.
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
The only place I can think where it might still be used in modern high-level languages is if one also adheres to the ancient (and out-dated?) principle that a function should have a single exit point. Sometimes making that happen without goto makes for some clunky, hard to read code with multi-level nests of IF blocks. My sig will confirm that I agree with you, though I haven't used goto since I abandoned QuickBasic some 15 years ago, and haven't written assembly in 20+.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I would one step further since the ternary test is not only silly, it might throw an exception all on it's own due to text being null. If you KNOW something is "0", why parse it to 0? Why is an empty string valid? Is a null string valid?
I dont know its going to be zero. It could be any number and it will never be null. An empty string is valid because a previous version of this code used them. This version doesnt.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The code has other problems. Why create the file before you know whether there are any errors?
Because there are terminals that watch for changes in this file. If a parse fails then I have a partially written data file. This will cause several other terminals to report errors.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Why set totalDelays and value back to zero?
Because totalDelays is for each individual class in dataList. If it's not set back to zero then it will add up across all of the classes in the list. You're making assumptions here. Setting delays to zero is unnecessary. That was left over and can be removed.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
"its" is spelled "it's" in this context, but it should probably read "it was".
Thanks for pointing that out. That grammatical error could cause the entire app to crash and burn. Good catch.
DanielSheets wrote:
I dont know its going to be zero. It could be any number and it will never be null.
An empty string is valid because a previous version of this code used them. This version doesnt.int.TryParse((dgc.MATL.Equals("") ? "0" : dgc.MATL), out value))
In the case of empty string, you know the result will be zero. If this isn't valid for this version, refactor the code and remove the check.
DanielSheets wrote:
Because there are terminals that watch for changes in this file. If a parse fails then I have a partially written data file. This will cause several other terminals to report errors.
You miss my point. You don't need to create the file until you have added up the total count. You can still keep the rename in for the purposes you stated.
DanielSheets wrote:
Because totalDelays is for each individual class in dataList. If it's not set back to zero then it will add up across all of the classes in the list. You're making assumptions here.
Huh? Oh yeah, I was right:
DanielSheets wrote:
Setting delays to zero is unnecessary. That was left over and can be removed.
Fact is, you don't need the goto and were showed why. Instead of taking that and learning (as I did with the ternary and null) you became defensive. Turns out your code needs to be refactored anyway, so why not fix it right?
-
The goto is not required, you can always skip around with variable but sometime it's the best solution. In this example the goto is a clear simple example, remove it and you introduce less readable and more complexity.
function BigFunction() {
for (int i =0; i < 100; i++) {
while(true) {
if (...) {
goto DO_SOMETHING_AT_THE_END;
}
}
}DO_SOMETHING_AT_THE_END:
DoSomething();
}I strongly disagree. This calls for splitting the function into two, if not more, pieces and/or rethinking the algorithm. I've seen code like this cause way too many bugs when something is introduced in the middle of BigFunction which doesn't get cleaned up at the end.
-
My guess is he goes to those places often and with reason. Thus, other block controls would be more useful. E.g., while he is not at work he is in the bar, etc.
-
I wrote assembly for years and never used "goto". :)
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
-
I wrote assembly for years and never used "goto". :)
-
In SQL - fairly often to jump to the error handler at the end of our sprocs. I'll admit there's no good reason we do this, since it's easy enough for us to avoid this with if statements, but it's a pattern used in our original code and so for consistency we stuck with it:
Create Procedure MyProc as
Begin Tran -- Do stuff... if @@error <> 0 goto errorHandler Commit Tran Return 0errorHandler:
Rollback Tran
Return 1cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
DanielSheets wrote:
I dont know its going to be zero. It could be any number and it will never be null.
An empty string is valid because a previous version of this code used them. This version doesnt.int.TryParse((dgc.MATL.Equals("") ? "0" : dgc.MATL), out value))
In the case of empty string, you know the result will be zero. If this isn't valid for this version, refactor the code and remove the check.
DanielSheets wrote:
Because there are terminals that watch for changes in this file. If a parse fails then I have a partially written data file. This will cause several other terminals to report errors.
You miss my point. You don't need to create the file until you have added up the total count. You can still keep the rename in for the purposes you stated.
DanielSheets wrote:
Because totalDelays is for each individual class in dataList. If it's not set back to zero then it will add up across all of the classes in the list. You're making assumptions here.
Huh? Oh yeah, I was right:
DanielSheets wrote:
Setting delays to zero is unnecessary. That was left over and can be removed.
Fact is, you don't need the goto and were showed why. Instead of taking that and learning (as I did with the ternary and null) you became defensive. Turns out your code needs to be refactored anyway, so why not fix it right?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Huh? Oh yeah, I was right:
You were half right.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Fact is, you don't need the goto and were showed why. Instead of taking that and learning (as I did with the ternary and null) you became defensive. Turns out your code needs to be refactored anyway, so why not fix it right?
I've not gotten defensive at all? If you think I did, then where? Personally, I like the ternary operator. I like the way it looks and I like the way it works. I'm not a "n00b" programmer by any means. I am, however, completely self taught. I'm also in the process of taking Microsoft certified courses in C# (through the company I work for). Perhaps then I can learn to code to the standards set forth by the majority here. And for the record... Of all of the projects that I've completed here, the code snippet I put here contained the very first use of goto that I've used in years. After thinking about it, its simple and concise. You remind me of a gear snob. In case you're not a musician let me explain that for you. A gear snob is, for example, a guitarist who plays an expensive Fender Strat that looks down on another guitarist that plays a Squier or an Epiphone. You are convinced that goto's and ternary operators are examples of bad programming. So you're condescending to me because I use them. But in the end... I don't care what you think. Your opinion means about as much to me as anybody else's here. And thats exactly what it is. An opinion. How's that for defensive?
-
This isn't a programming question. Anyway... I find it useful in very few situations. It can make for cleaner code if used correctly. Of course, it can also be over used.
Twenty years ago i was 10, and learning to program in QBASIC. That was the last time I used GOTO.