12 May
2005
12 May
'05
9:44 a.m.
Subject: Re: 'goto" gone from computer languages or is it!
From: "Randy McLaughlin" <cctalk at randy482.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:04:53 -0500
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Goto's can be bad if they make the code hard to follow but I find that most
people write such sloppy code that it's hard to follow anyway as well as
making code more complicated trying to avoid goto's.
Basic is a language that is easy to code badly.
I'm one of the few that was mostly BASIC and ASM until UCSD P-system
and decided to learn a "structured" language. I was eye opening the
difference coding learned. After that I tried writing basic using
block structure and treating goto and return like Call and JUMP with
better looking results. I can see the effect it had looking at some
of my really old code.
I agree with an earlier post. BASIC improperly can rot your mind,
it's bad drugs for programmers.
Allison
12 May
12 May
11:26 a.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Allison wrote:
Basic is a language that is easy to code badly.
I'm one of the few that was mostly BASIC and ASM until UCSD P-system
and decided to learn a "structured" language. I was eye opening the
difference coding learned. After that I tried writing basic using
block structure and treating goto and return like Call and JUMP with
better looking results. I can see the effect it had looking at some
of my really old code.
My high school compsci teacher introduced me to "structured programming"
in BASIC, and I accepted it, but it still seemed to stifle my creativity.
In the second semester he forced me into Pascal. Let's face it: the UCSD
Pascal system just sucks. I was willing to go along with it and learn
Pascal until one day I put in the wrong disk during a proscribed disk
swap and, instead of having proper error recovery, the OS proceeded to
overwrite my disk with something else, losing all my source code. I swore
off Pascal from that moment on.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:49 a.m.
At 10:26 AM 5/12/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal system just sucks.
Of course Pascal has its flaws, and they became more obvious as
people tried to use this designed-for-education language as a
application production language. In its best years, it was
a very useful packaging of an integrated editor, file system
and interactive compilation and almost-debugging.
For several years in college in the early 80s, I made a relatively
tremendous amount of cash as a private tutor of business students
who were required to take a entry-level programming language course.
Most took Pascal.
It was a wonderful lesson for my future consulting work, too,
learning that you can make more money less strenuously by
patiently explaining something to someone than if you had
been paid to do it for them.
I was willing to go along with it and learn
Pascal until one day I put in the wrong disk during a proscribed disk
swap and, instead of having proper error recovery, the OS proceeded to
overwrite my disk with something else, losing all my source code. I swore
off Pascal from that moment on.
That's the P-System operating system shell or your app, not Pascal.
"Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language", by Brian Kernighan,
circa 1981:
http://www.threedee.com/jcm/psystem/whypascal.html
- John
12:52 p.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
Right. Just for the record, it was you knocking Pascal and not me, so all
flames should be directed at you ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
At 10:26 AM 5/12/2005, Vintage Computer Festival
wrote:
My comment was directed specifically at the UCSD Pascal system, and
furthermore directly at the Apple version. Pascal as a language is not
bad, and is probably the best language for doing what it was invented for,
which is teaching high level programming. And of course, tons of useful
production software has been developed in Pascal.
Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal system just
sucks.
Of course Pascal has its flaws, and they became more obvious as
people tried to use this designed-for-education language as a
application production language. In its best years, it was
a very useful packaging of an integrated editor, file system
and interactive compilation and almost-debugging. I was willing
to go along with it and learn
Pascal until one day I put in the wrong disk during a proscribed disk
swap and, instead of having proper error recovery, the OS proceeded to
overwrite my disk with something else, losing all my source code. I swore
off Pascal from that moment on.
That's the P-System operating system shell or your app, not Pascal. 
1:13 p.m.
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
Pascal was punch card user input , C at least used TTY's :)
At 10:26 AM 5/12/2005, Vintage Computer Festival
wrote:
My comment was directed specifically at the UCSD Pascal system, and
furthermore directly at the Apple version. Pascal as a language is not
bad, and is probably the best language for doing what it was invented for,
which is teaching high level programming. And of course, tons of useful
production software has been developed in Pascal.
Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal system just
sucks.
Of course Pascal has its flaws, and they became more obvious as
people tried to use this designed-for-education language as a
application production language. In its best years, it was
a very useful packaging of an integrated editor, file system
and interactive compilation and almost-debugging.
15 May
15 May
2:24 a.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:13:06 -0600
woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
When I took the 'intro to computer programming' course in college** ,
the punched-card language was FORTRAN. The 'interactive' programming
language was FOCAL at a teletype.
(** Hamline University, St. Paul, MN, 1978)
On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
Pascal was punch card user input , C at least used TTY's :)
At 10:26 AM 5/12/2005, Vintage Computer Festival
wrote:
My comment was directed specifically at the UCSD Pascal system, and
furthermore directly at the Apple version. Pascal as a language is
not bad, and is probably the best language for doing what it was
invented for, which is teaching high level programming. And of
course, tons of useful production software has been developed in
Pascal.
Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal system just
sucks.
Of course Pascal has its flaws, and they became more obvious as
people tried to use this designed-for-education language as a
application production language. In its best years, it was
a very useful packaging of an integrated editor, file system
and interactive compilation and almost-debugging.
2:47 a.m.
From: "Scott Stevens" <chenmel at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:24 AM
<snip>
When I took the 'intro to computer
programming' course in college** ,
the punched-card language was FORTRAN. The 'interactive' programming
language was FOCAL at a teletype.
(** Hamline University, St. Paul, MN, 1978)
For me all the computers I had access to used punch cards. The computers
used 029 but the punches that were easiest to get to were 026's (with
printed instructions for translating the differences posted on the punches).
I was working in a computer-lab for an oil company that used 029 punches
where I did most of my work.
My problem is that while I was still in high-school I was working at the lab
and was told that when the work was complete I had to stay in the lab until
my shift was over but I could play with the computer if I wanted too.
They used an XDS Sigma 5, I went to Xerox to buy the manuals for the
computer to learn how to program it. I used Xerox's Fortran manual to learn
programming which had a lot of extensions. When I took my first Fortran
course I had to "un-learn" the extensions.
What was really funny is that I knew nothing about programming and at the
time thought all programs were written in Fortran. The manuals were very
technical so I went to a book store to find an easier book. I found the
perfect book, it was named "Basic Programming" :-)
I was cheap so I translated the Basic program examples to Fortran.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
4:13 a.m.
"goto considered harmful" is like all generalizations, a generalization
:-)
All good programmers (for the correct definition of good :-) know when
to use a goto and how to avoid it at all other times. The problem is
that it's hard to start your programming career as a good programmer so
simple rules are developed to help improve programming style. Rules
such as
1) If a routine is more than a page long (132x60?) then you should
split it up into two or more procedures - this addresses complexity for
new programmers
2) Make variable names descriptive - this keeps the RSI levels up.
3) Add lots of comments - more of 2!
4) Don't use gotos
etc.
Now I did a lot of programming in BLISS-10 and there are no gotos to
use even when you really, really need them. This changed my programming
style so much that when I learnt Python earlier this year I didn't
realize there was no goto to use either - I hadn't needed to use on.
Once you have spent time writing structured programs then you can write
good assembler code that doesn't look like spaghetti though dinner
tonight doesn't look like code either!
I blame BASIC (and to a lesser extent FOCAL) for having line numbers on
each line which tends to bredd programs and programmers who use gotos
far too frequently.
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies at kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
12 May
12 May
12:06 p.m.
>>>> "Vintage" == Vintage
Computer Festival <vcf at siconic.com> writes:
Vintage> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Allison wrote:
> Basic is a language that is easy to code badly.
>
> I'm one of the few that was mostly BASIC and ASM until UCSD
> P-system and decided to learn a "structured" language. I was eye
> opening the difference coding learned. After that I tried writing
> basic using block structure and treating goto and return like Call
> and JUMP with better looking results. I can see the effect it had
> looking at some of my really old code.
Vintage> My high school compsci teacher introduced me to "structured
Vintage> programming" in BASIC, and I accepted it, but it still
Vintage> seemed to stifle my creativity.
No wonder -- structured programming in Basic is like doing carpentry
with a nail file and a brick as your only tools.
Vintage> In the second semester he
Vintage> forced me into Pascal. Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal
Vintage> system just sucks. I was willing to go along with it and
Vintage> learn Pascal until one day I put in the wrong disk during a
Vintage> proscribed disk swap and, instead of having proper error
Vintage> recovery, the OS proceeded to overwrite my disk with
Vintage> something else, losing all my source code. I swore off
Vintage> Pascal from that moment on.
I didn't realize the implementation was that bad. Unfortunate that
you mistook implementation incompetence as a reflection on the
language rather than on the implementers.
My experience was just the opposite -- started in high school with
Algol (THE system), detoured through Fortran 2, assembler, and
BASIC-PLUS, then at U of Ill took a compiler course where the prof
forced us to use his (Cornell U) PL/1 "compiler" -- an utter piece of
trash. In mid-course its defects were so obvious even to its creator
that he allowed us to switch to Pascal on the DEC-10, which was
excellent.
paul
1:26 p.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Paul Koning wrote:
Well, the intent was to get us ready for something entirely new. The
class was small (only about 5 of the geekiest geeks in school), and all of
us were basically BASIC programmers. I guess our teacher felt if he threw
us into Pascal without first introducing the concepts of structured
programming in something we knew then we might get totally lost. It would
probably have been better to just be dunked in the pool and forced to
learn how to swim.
>>>> "Vintage" == Vintage Computer Festival <vcf at
siconic.com> writes:
Vintage> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Allison wrote:
> Basic is a language that is easy to code
badly.
>
> I'm one of the few that was mostly BASIC and ASM until UCSD
> P-system and decided to learn a "structured" language. I was eye
> opening the difference coding learned. After that I tried writing
> basic using block structure and treating goto and return like Call
> and JUMP with better looking results. I can see the effect it had
> looking at some of my really old code.
Vintage> My high school compsci teacher introduced me to "structured
Vintage> programming" in BASIC, and I accepted it, but it still
Vintage> seemed to stifle my creativity.
No wonder -- structured programming in Basic is like doing carpentry
with a nail file and a brick as your only tools. Vintage> In the second semester he
Vintage> forced me into Pascal. Let's face it: the UCSD Pascal
Vintage> system just sucks. I was willing to go along with it and
Vintage> learn Pascal until one day I put in the wrong disk during a
Vintage> proscribed disk swap and, instead of having proper error
Vintage> recovery, the OS proceeded to overwrite my disk with
Vintage> something else, losing all my source code. I swore off
Vintage> Pascal from that moment on.
I didn't realize the implementation was that bad. Unfortunate that
you mistook implementation incompetence as a reflection on the
language rather than on the implementers.
Again, I swore off Pascal because of the UCSD system. If I'd had Turbo
Pascal to learn on then things might've turned out much different. Of
course, Turbo Pascal required a CP/M card and a license. It was easier
for teacher to just copy UCSD Pascal ;)
Pascal is not a bad language to develop in. But I much prefer the
succinctness of C.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
4:33 p.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:44:47 +0200, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
Basic is a language it is difficult to code well.
...
Subject: Re: 'goto" gone from computer languages or is it!
From: "Randy McLaughlin" <cctalk at randy482.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:04:53 -0500
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Goto's can be bad if they make the code hard to follow but I find that
most
people write such sloppy code that it's hard to follow anyway as well as
making code more complicated trying to avoid goto's.
Basic is a language that is easy to code badly.
I agree with an earlier post. BASIC improperly can rot your mind,
it's bad drugs for programmers.
The danger is not so much BASIC itself as the bad habits almost everybody
got from learning it as a first language.
Your first programming language has a very profound influence on how you
think about programming, even after you become fluent in other languages.
My first programming language was Algol 60, and it was very useful for me
later on.
The problem with goto in general and BASIC in particular, is that they
encourage a view of the problem as a sequence of actions. That view may be
OK for trivial problems, but it may easily encourage a lack of analysis.
FORTH is a nice language to force people to think about the problem first
and code afterwards.
--
-bv
13 May
13 May
1:54 a.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Allison wrote:
Basic is a language that is easy to code badly.
THat's an understatement! :-)
I'm one of the few that was mostly BASIC and ASM
until UCSD P-system
and decided to learn a "structured" language. I was eye opening the
difference coding learned. After that I tried writing basic using
block structure and treating goto and return like Call and JUMP with
better looking results. I can see the effect it had looking at some
of my really old code.
I agree with an earlier post. BASIC improperly can rot your mind,
it's bad drugs for programmers.
I write "BASIC" today -- in PICs. The compilers are often
appropriate for the target machine -- a non-orthogonal processor
with no real addressing modes, etc. The compiler just generates
(not very good) inline code and links in library functions.
I write very structured and hopefully readable code in PIC BASIC.
I use knowledge of the chip and the compiler to "optimize" (eg.
avoid * and / if at all possible (usually).
The bottom line is: Programming is programming. You do good work,
or shit work, your choice! It's a poor workmammal who blames their
tools!
(Though around computers there are truly bad tools... :-)
7012
days inactive
7012
days old
11 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bv＠norbionics.com -
cctalk＠randy482.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
huw.davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com