I just used a goto!
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
avoiding goto by using try/catch/exception for expected behavior! genius! :laugh:
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
I was going to chime in that all Exception handling is really goto programming and then I saw DRHuff's excellent reply. People talk about never using goto and then you look at their code and see exception handling and think, "what's this here?" This is also why exception handling can be a pain in the arse. All that jumping around. Consider what happens if you throw an exception in your catch block -- and it is possible. Things can get really ugly jumping here, bouncing there. :laugh:
-
PeejayAdams wrote:
many years ago
PeejayAdams wrote:
and nobody had died
That's the exact same time my cat died! :wtf: :(( [Dramatic pause] I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want, but I have a very particular lack of skills. I will never be able to find you. But what I do have is two dollars and a Casio wristwatch. You can have one of them.
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
I'm sure it was the week after your cat died but I'll have the Casio just in case!
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
-
The important thing with
gotois knowing when not to use it - which is most of the time. :laugh:Gotohas its place, but if you can use a structured loop or branch instead then your code is generally cleaner and more maintainable. But very occasionally, using agotomakes your code cleaner or much more efficient and (provided it's well documented) isn't a problem. It's a problem when it's used because they can: and teachers who introduce it early should be hung, drawn, and quartered (and I don't mean "well hung", "sketched", and "given an apartment").Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
The only time "goto" is warranted is if in a nested structure where to accomplish the code control, a flag would need to be set and then checked more than once by the control statements within which this decision to break out is needed. I think I have used it 3 times, and all times, I gave a very good comment as to why it was the proper choice.
-
I was going to chime in that all Exception handling is really goto programming and then I saw DRHuff's excellent reply. People talk about never using goto and then you look at their code and see exception handling and think, "what's this here?" This is also why exception handling can be a pain in the arse. All that jumping around. Consider what happens if you throw an exception in your catch block -- and it is possible. Things can get really ugly jumping here, bouncing there. :laugh:
I think the only time that exception handling should be used is when the current code section does not have any control over the code that is throwing the exception - i.e., it is preferable to check and control something than to rely on an exception that simply does a goto the catch branch.
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
it's an old view but as a Hardware/Firmware type I cannot see the hatred for goto, I mean the jmp is a direct map and it produces a smaller binary. Goto is like an axe very useful but very dangerous. An axe wont cut your hand off, misuse it and you could be missing a hand very easily!
-
The important thing with
gotois knowing when not to use it - which is most of the time. :laugh:Gotohas its place, but if you can use a structured loop or branch instead then your code is generally cleaner and more maintainable. But very occasionally, using agotomakes your code cleaner or much more efficient and (provided it's well documented) isn't a problem. It's a problem when it's used because they can: and teachers who introduce it early should be hung, drawn, and quartered (and I don't mean "well hung", "sketched", and "given an apartment").Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
teachers who introduce it early should be hung, drawn, and quartered (and I don't mean "well hung", "sketched", and "given an apartment").
My CS teacher introduced them early. However it was more of a "Here is the
gotostatement, here is how it can go horribly wrong, and that is why you should never use it again... ever. If you do, you will fail whatever assignment it was in." sort of way. While it was a bit over dramatic, she did follow up with how to better handle branching/looping logic without them. -
The only time "goto" is warranted is if in a nested structure where to accomplish the code control, a flag would need to be set and then checked more than once by the control statements within which this decision to break out is needed. I think I have used it 3 times, and all times, I gave a very good comment as to why it was the proper choice.
goto is NOT the enemy, it's only when it's used wrongly. but also ... contrary to popular belief disguising it fixes nothing ... if you really need to GOTO, just do it - hiding it only increases the bullshit level. unfortunatelly, there are teachers that tell the kids "GOTO is bad," but then "to do the same thing..." they then go on and teach the kids how to disguise them, i.e. instead use THROW, or stick the [inner] code in a method and return early (i.e. still in an indefinite state). ffs, really! I've got no problems with goto, but I do have issues with (1) shit code, and even more (2) attempts to hide shit code
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
-
Aw man... you can't just drop that on us and not show us the code! That's just mean!!! :((
Mm.. it took me 2 hours to write the function.. that doesn't have goto in it in the end! :laugh: To be fair both the function was complicated and I was distracted! ;P
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Why not use them? Sometimes they make sense. Spaghetti code is spaghetti code regardless whether it uses classes, is structured, or just plain crap.
-
Why not use them? Sometimes they make sense. Spaghetti code is spaghetti code regardless whether it uses classes, is structured, or just plain crap.
Coming from a embedded back ground, GOTO maps directly to JMP! write assembly without JMP. Like you said I battled with object oriented code that is c*ap but well structured. I like anything don't blame the tools, blame the tool using the tool! ;)
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Coming from a embedded back ground, GOTO maps directly to JMP! write assembly without JMP. Like you said I battled with object oriented code that is c*ap but well structured. I like anything don't blame the tools, blame the tool using the tool! ;)
I have seen some terrible C++ code, the worst was a child of a parent, instantiated as the parent. SO child * myclass = new parent. WTF! Which frigging function is going to get called, the base class or the overridden one! I wanted to punch the person who wrote that.
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Find In Files / Current Project / "goto" Matching lines: 1254 it's common in C, as it's the cleanest way to handle error conditions.
-
I think the only time that exception handling should be used is when the current code section does not have any control over the code that is throwing the exception - i.e., it is preferable to check and control something than to rely on an exception that simply does a goto the catch branch.
I can agree with that. I had the misfortune of having to deal with an automation systems framework that was essentially a state machine library and it changed states by throwing an exception. I thought it was incredibly stupid. This framework was spreading throughout one division of a customer until someone finally pulled their head out and asked what is this pile you have subjected us to? This particular customer joined my very short list of the worst ones I have ever dealt with and I refuse to buy any of their products to this day.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
In high level languages... Ok, maybe you have more possibilities and you should avoid using goto's But try to programm in Assembly, in PLC LAD or other similar "low" level languages without it. It is like many other things. Use it wisely and there would be no problems. Abuse or misuse it... and you will burn in hell (or you will be damned and sent to hell by the people who inherit your code)
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
To avoid this you can put the entire code block in a try. Put the catch at the go to label and throw an exception where you call the goto. Because that’s different somehow!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
And what happens when the language you are programing in offers no try-catch-throw?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I think the only time that exception handling should be used is when the current code section does not have any control over the code that is throwing the exception - i.e., it is preferable to check and control something than to rely on an exception that simply does a goto the catch branch.
agreed. I'm thinking of calls to another library where it throws a specific exception after being configured properly. In that case all inputs are set to valid values but then something happens which causes the exception - network not available or something.
-
I know "it's bad" and I will be shun by all good developers and rich employers for a thousands years... But I look at it.. I can't find of anything better.. mm, maybe a private inner function (i.e. function inside a method).... followed by misplaced return.... mm....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
while ( true ) { ... break ... }
