[Info-vax] BASIC (and Horizon)

[Chris Townley]

On 31/01/2024 04:28, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 9:40 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
>> On 30/01/2024 07:06, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 8:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 7:50 PM, kludge at panix.com wrote:
>>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>> The code is VB6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But none of the problems are Basic specific. It is possible
>>>>>> to write the same bad code in C or Fortran or whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it just shows that there are some really really bad programmers 
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have worked with people who could write spaghetti Fortran in any
>>>>> programming language available.
>>>>
>>>> "A real Fortran programmer can write Fortran in any language"
>>>>
>>>> Every time this comes up I post this Fortran/Pascal code:
>>>>
>>>>       PROGRAM GOTOFUN(INPUT,OUTPUT);
>>>>       LABEL L731,L113,L247,L588,L761,L922,L399,L601;
>>>>       VAR LBL:INTEGER;
>>>>       VAR I:INTEGER;
>>>>       BEGIN
>>>> L731: GOTO L113;
>>>>       LBL:=399;
>>>> L113: I:=0;
>>>>       WRITELN(I);
>>>> L247: LBL:=601;
>>>>       IF(I<0)THEN GOTO L588 ELSE IF(I=0)THEN GOTO L922 ELSE GOTO L399;
>>>> L588: I:=I+1;
>>>>       WRITELN(I);
>>>>       GOTO L399;
>>>> L761: CASE(LBL)OF 399: GOTO L399; 601: GOTO L601; END;
>>>> L922: I:=I+1;
>>>>       WRITELN(I);
>>>>       CASE(I)OF 1: GOTO L588; 2: GOTO L399; 3: GOTO L922; END;
>>>> L399: GOTO L761;
>>>> L601: END.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm amused every time the GoTo bashing begins.
>>>
>>> Not only is there nothing wrong when using a branch operation, when
>>> appropriate, just look at the assembler listings after compilation.  
>>> Branching
>>> is just about all assembler does, as required.
>>>
>>> Now, I won't defend what I and most consider improper use of the poor
>>> misunderstood GoTo statement.
>>>
>>
>> But unless used very carefully, it can create horrible spaghetti like 
>> code, and
>> is also easy to screw up.
>>
>> Using proper structured constructs is much better - easier to read as 
>> well,
>> hence better maintainability.
>>
>>
> 
> Prey tell, what structured construct will perform cleanup and exit?  I 
> always expected a return from routines and such.
> 

It would depend on what is needing to be done

-- 
Chris