On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 7:15:11 AM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:52 am, bartc wrote: > > > I know this isn't the Python need-for-speed thread, but this is a > > classic example where the lack of one simple feature leads to using > > slower, more cumbersome ones. > > Dear gods, have I fallen back in time to 1975 again?
Good that you start with the suggestion that we are not in 1975 <snip> > Features should not be judged solely on their usefulness to the best 1% of > programmers using the feature in the best possible way. You also need to > consider the lesser mortals, the below-average 50% of programmers who will > use the feature in sub-optimal if not outright terrible ways. > > GOTOs are far to easy to abuse. The harm that they do is outweighed a > thousand times by the rare positive use. Most languages do well to avoid > GOTO, even if that means that there are one or two rare uses that have to > be written slightly sub-optimally for the lack. That sounds very 1970s to me. With the languages that I (and presumably you) grew up with using gotos was too easy; not using was hard or impossible. The most structured was Pascal which set out to be ornery by making one declare labels. With everything else — Fortran-IV, Basic, assembler — it was next to impossible. Cut to 2017 and take a random 20 year old brought up on python/java/ruby/javascript/haskell Where/how would he have learnt to use gotos? In short: In 1968 "Goto statement considered harmful" was a necessary viewpoint. Today its a quasi-religious bias without basis. Personal Note: Much of the direction that my programming/teaching has taken in the last 30 years can be traced to a statement made by a teacher when I was graduating: “What the goto does to control-structure, the assignment does to data-structure” -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
