From: Rod Speed on
Joe Fischer <joe(a)westpointracing.com> wrote
> dold(a)04.usenet.us.com wrote

>>> the fascist prof gave me an F on that program because I used a GOTO :-)

>> That statement deserves a smiley, because it's laughable.

> The concept that there is something wrong with GOTO is what is laughable,

Nope.

> there direct machine instructions for the 386 family that does precisely that.

Irrelevant.

> What can possibly be wrong with using a machine instruction?

It makes the code hard to read.

> This is one of the things wrong across the board
> with all concepts and technology today, outhouse
> rumors, old wives tales, and gossip shape the
> thinking of many, in direct opposition to facts.

We'll see...

> GOTO is the same as JMP (unconditional),
> and that is used often in machine language,
> along with the conditional jumps.

Irrelevant to what makes for more readable code.

> They save code and processing time if used
> properly, the "high level" way of calling functions uses
> more instructions, more CPU time, and uses more
> stack space to store the return address, which can
> actually cause the program to crash in some cases.

Using that mindlessly silly line, its undesirable to use functions.

> And the same thing is happening with PHEVs, there
> are writers now that are saying the auto makers fear
> public objections to "having to plug in the charger",
> even though the very purpose is to save money
> and possibly not burn as much fossil fuel.

Irrelevant to what makes for more readable code.


From: Morris Dovey on
"Joe Fischer" <joe(a)westpointracing.com> wrote in message
news:ng53p2pavknkpiash4e28thk2hn770sd7k(a)4ax.com...
| On Tue, "Morris Dovey" <mrdovey(a)iedu.com> wrote:
|
| >I wasn't inviting a language war - your options really are limited
if
| >you require the BASIC interpreter; and they really are wide open
(and
| >the bulk of your code most probably can be easily ported to new
| >architectures) if you implement in C.
|
| That overlooks the fact that the BASIC text file
| source code is easier to use by anyone with a copy
| of a BASIC interpreter, and easier to change parameters,
| in the shortest possible source code, ___without___
| compiling.

That's only true if one ignores C interpreters (I do.)

| Compiled programs are good for certain things,
| line number BASIC has it's merits, one being the
| ability for a user to change it easy.

Integrated development environments (IDEs) make this a non-argument.
They allow making a source change and clicking on a "RUN" button to
automatically compile, link edit, and execute quicker than you can
type "RUN".

| But there are BASIC compilers that don't
| need the RUNxxxxx support files, although that
| defeats the purpose of writing source code that
| can be translated to human understanding of
| the calculations.

True; but also a non-argument. If it's written to be readable, then it
will be.

| When doing any energy calculations, it
| helps to be able to work directly with the source
| code and an interpreter.

This pre-supposes that the person writing the code has, at best, an
incomplete understanding of the problem. A person who understands the
problem and the tools being used implements the solution directly.

| And there are even people who object to
| just being the slave of the programmer and
| just fill in the values when prompted, but
| to each his own.

"Slave of the programmer" describes an unhealthy environment. In a
healthy situation, the programmer is the slave of a functional
specification. If your situation is different, you should be
considering replacing either the person responsible for the
specification or the programmer.


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto



From: Don K on
"Morris Dovey" <mrdovey(a)iedu.com> wrote in message news:4591a689$0$507$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net...
> "Joe Fischer" <joe(a)westpointracing.com> wrote in message
> news:ng53p2pavknkpiash4e28thk2hn770sd7k(a)4ax.com...
>
> | When doing any energy calculations, it
> | helps to be able to work directly with the source
> | code and an interpreter.
>
> This pre-supposes that the person writing the code has, at best, an
> incomplete understanding of the problem.

Just because someone has written specialized code for a specific
application, doesn't mean they have an incomplete understanding
of the problem. They're just being cost-effective.

> A person who understands the
> problem and the tools being used implements the solution directly.

Sometimes it's more efficient to do it yourself from scratch,
and sometimes it's more efficient to build on the work
of others.

Don


From: rst0wxyz on

Rod Speed wrote:
> Joe Fischer <joe(a)westpointracing.com> wrote
> > dold(a)04.usenet.us.com wrote
>
> >>> the fascist prof gave me an F on that program because I used a GOTO :-)
>
> >> That statement deserves a smiley, because it's laughable.
>
> > The concept that there is something wrong with GOTO is what is laughable,
>
> Nope.
>
> > there direct machine instructions for the 386 family that does precisely that.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> > What can possibly be wrong with using a machine instruction?
>
> It makes the code hard to read.

The program is NOT structured with a GOTO instruction as taught in
Structured Programming.

>
> > This is one of the things wrong across the board
> > with all concepts and technology today, outhouse
> > rumors, old wives tales, and gossip shape the
> > thinking of many, in direct opposition to facts.
>
> We'll see...
>
> > GOTO is the same as JMP (unconditional),
> > and that is used often in machine language,
> > along with the conditional jumps.
>
> Irrelevant to what makes for more readable code.
>
> > They save code and processing time if used
> > properly, the "high level" way of calling functions uses
> > more instructions, more CPU time, and uses more
> > stack space to store the return address, which can
> > actually cause the program to crash in some cases.
>
> Using that mindlessly silly line, its undesirable to use functions.
>
> > And the same thing is happening with PHEVs, there
> > are writers now that are saying the auto makers fear
> > public objections to "having to plug in the charger",
> > even though the very purpose is to save money
> > and possibly not burn as much fossil fuel.
>
> Irrelevant to what makes for more readable code.

From: Morris Dovey on
"Don K" <dk(a)dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
news:StmdnXS7kbxHMgzYnZ2dnUVZ_tW3nZ2d(a)comcast.com...
| "Morris Dovey" <mrdovey(a)iedu.com> wrote in message
news:4591a689$0$507$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net...
| > "Joe Fischer" <joe(a)westpointracing.com> wrote in message
| > news:ng53p2pavknkpiash4e28thk2hn770sd7k(a)4ax.com...
| >
| > | When doing any energy calculations, it
| > | helps to be able to work directly with the source
| > | code and an interpreter.
| >
| > This pre-supposes that the person writing the code has, at best,
an
| > incomplete understanding of the problem.
|
| Just because someone has written specialized code for a specific
| application, doesn't mean they have an incomplete understanding
| of the problem. They're just being cost-effective.
|
| > A person who understands the
| > problem and the tools being used implements the solution directly.
|
| Sometimes it's more efficient to do it yourself from scratch,
| and sometimes it's more efficient to build on the work
| of others.

Hmm. I must not understand - seems to me that the only reason for
"tinkering" would be to "get it right". If the person writing the code
understands the problem well enough to implement a solution and
understands the language being used for that implementation, tinkering
is "goofing off".

Goofing off is neither cost-effective nor efficient.

None of this has anything to do with choice of a programming language.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto