[Info-vax] BASIC (and Horizon)

[Chris Townley]

On 31/01/2024 18:27, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 7:03 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
>> 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
>>
> 
> Final cleanup, if required, and exit the program.
> 
> Knew a guy that would us a gosub to go to the END statement.  Drove me 
> nuts.
> 

We always used global error handling, as well as local when error...

At least with DEC Basic, it always handled garbage collection

-- 
Chris