Re: question?
cbossen...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Multiple exits are glorified gotos,
Lew wrote:
Which is bad why? Even assuming you are correct.
cbossen...@yahoo.fr wrote:
As much as I loved JMP when programming in assembly,
I consider goto's to be an abomination in a well
written OO program (I don't dispute the usefulness
of the Java goto bytecode, I say it has no place
in OOP).
I disagree that "multiple exits are glorified gotos". Simply drawing the
analogy doesn't prove that multiple exit points are bad; you have to show what
about 'goto' is bad, and how multiple exit points reflect that badness. You
did neither.
Java has a 'goto' called 'break'. It is carefully renamed to avoid the sort
of prejudice you evince, and restricted so that the bad things about 'goto'
cannot happen, while the useful parts remain.
cbossens73@yahoo.fr wrote:
just like using exception for flow control.
Lew wrote:
cbossens73@yahoo.fr wrote:
> [reasons why using exceptions for flow control is like using 'goto']
You misconstrue. I am not in favor of using exceptions for flow control.
It's just that they are so much more complex and costly than 'goto' for that
purpose that the analogy between them is very inexact.
But of course you seem so emotionally invested in
making single line quotes and single line answers
showing how smart you are that I don't expect to
hear from you:
I was taking you seriously until you got personal. How about you avoid the
unnecessary /ad hominem/ attacks, hm?
Your argument that "multiple exits are glorified gotos" was itself a
single-line comment that completely omitted the reasons why 'goto' can be bad,
and how multiple exits reflect that. Cast out the beam in thine own eye
before attacking the mote in mine, brother.
--
Lew