[G0rman]

SpectateSwamp, on 14 October 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Goto's are the greatest. I just love them.

The greatest program on the planet has well over 200 goto's. And I am adding them all the time.

My most recent feature is to randomly play video along with the associated large font text explaining the clip. The program is a monster and very spaghetti like. Rather than try and figure out where the logic has to skip to. I put in a goto and test it; then another and another and presto the puppy is working better than expected. If you like jamming code like I do, then you have to use goto's

So this is how one summons SpectateSwamp huh. I figured it would involve the blood of goats and a big bowl of noodles.

I guess that officially means this thread is unproductive? Put a noodle in and jam it!

[modi123_1]

Quote

I guess that officially means this thread is unproductive?

Was this in doubt when the thread lurched out of the starting gate?

[G0rman]

macosxnerd101, on 14 October 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

No, I said you didn't make compelling arguments for the case of using gotos. Clearly you say now that you aren't advocating the use of gotos, nor is anyone else here. Clearly we both agree there are better ways of doing things here. I'm confused on what the discussion is or what the argument is.

You must really be confused. I have never once advocated the use of gotos. I have certainly not tried to make a "compelling arguments for the case of using gotos". If I did, it was entirely unintentional.

The code samples that we were discussing were to show only the power and flexibility. They did not talk about any other attribute, so don't judge them on any other attribute. Power and flexibility were not predicated on ANY conditions.

The discussion was - from the very first post - should students be taught gotos. My exact words in the OP are;
"GOTOs are considered "evil", but does that mean they should be forbidden knowledge? Is it important to learn about GOTOs in order to understand why they are bad?"

NOWHERE did I say "I just love gotos and we should abolish all kinds of structured programming elements and just use gotos".

I even go on to say that I don't like gotos and that teaching people would help them not to use them - ALL IN THE OP.

macosxnerd101, on 14 October 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Now who is accusing whom of taking things out of context? I said there are plenty of frameworks to test code. I did not specify what type of code, or even if it had to use gotos. I used JUnit as an example for Java. You didn't like that because Java doesn't use gotos, so I presented two comparable frameworks for C, which allows the use of gotos.

macosxnerd101, on 14 October 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Quote

A compiler won't catch everything either. Why does that make writing a test script a waste of time, and using a compiler not a waste of time? (barring that a compiler is more than just a syntactic validator).

Define writing a test script. Do you want to write something in bash to test a Java program? Why not just use other more standard forms of testing like JUnit for unit tests? I honestly cannot tell if you are writing a parser or talking about standard forms of testing. Please specify. And why are we ignoring the functionality built into a compiler?

I was talking EXPLICITLY about a script to validate (can't believe I've had to type this phrase so often - ) ad-hoc goto-emulation of functions.

It is impossible for such a thing to exist in Java. So testing it using JUnit is entirely ridiculous.

Perhaps you just thought of an example that was entirely impossible, but I think you just pulled that quote out of context. Which is backed up by the fact that I have never heard of any testing suit that can validate ad-hoc goto-emulation of functions.

Is my point coming across to you?

macosxnerd101, on 14 October 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Not really. I even pull your quotes with pretty clear context, and I get shut down for pulling things out of context. So regardless of whether or not I cite what you say, I'm going to get shut down.

You never once quoted any of my code nor referred directly to it. I don't think you made any valid examples of use of logical fallacies in my writing.

I don't think a statement like "I think it's fair to say your examples and points have a lot of logical fallacies" servers for any purpose other than to provoke.

Feel free to claim you meant it in a constructive way to promote discussion.

modi123_1, on 14 October 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

Quote

I guess that officially means this thread is unproductive?

Was this in doubt when the thread lurched out of the starting gate?

It was productive, pages 1 and 2 were very interesting. It wasn't always a thinly veiled flame war.

This post has been edited by G0rman: 13 October 2012 - 12:50 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

I don't think a statement like "I think it's fair to say your examples and points have a lot of logical fallacies" servers for any purpose other than to provoke.

It serves to point out that you are failing to communicate your points effectively. If you feel that there are not lots of logical fallacies in your examples and points, and you have managed to convince a lot of reasonable people, and me, that there are such errors, then either you are wrong about your examples and points or you are communicating them in a way that does not do them justice.

[G0rman]

jon.kiparsky, on 14 October 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Quote

I don't think a statement like "I think it's fair to say your examples and points have a lot of logical fallacies" servers for any purpose other than to provoke.

It serves to point out that you are failing to communicate your points effectively. If you feel that there are not lots of logical fallacies in your examples and points, and you have managed to convince a lot of reasonable people, and me, that there are such errors, then either you are wrong about your examples and points or you are communicating them in a way that does not do them justice.

And yet neither he nor you have pointed out any logical fallacies.

If you make a sweeping statements without anything to back you up, then how can you expect that to go well?

I'm reasonable, this is a discussion, throw down some specific examples instead of sitting back and saying "nah they are there, trust me".

This post has been edited by G0rman: 13 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

[SpectateSwamp]

Many years ago I was working on a cable billing system for Shaw CableSystems. It just wasn't selecting the correct customer records. The selection code was waaay too complex. My boss panicked about me changing the selection criteria.

The changed code was something like this:

line_2000: 'I like line numbers too
Get input file #1
if not the correct cycle goto line_2000
if customer is off billing goto line_2000
if customer is pre authorized goto line_2000
if customer has large credit goto line_2000
if customer is staff goto line_2000
.
.
Otherwise do a printed bill

Very simple. And anybody that worries about execution speed must be wasting computer cycles elsewhere

This post has been edited by SpectateSwamp: 13 October 2012 - 01:02 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

G0rman, on 13 October 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 14 October 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Quote

I don't think a statement like "I think it's fair to say your examples and points have a lot of logical fallacies" servers for any purpose other than to provoke.

It serves to point out that you are failing to communicate your points effectively. If you feel that there are not lots of logical fallacies in your examples and points, and you have managed to convince a lot of reasonable people, and me, that there are such errors, then either you are wrong about your examples and points or you are communicating them in a way that does not do them justice.

And yet neither he nor you have pointed out any logical fallacies.

If you make a sweeping statements without anything to back you up, then how can you expect that to go well?

I'm reasonable, this is a discussion, throw down some specific examples instead of sitting back and saying "nah they are there, trust me".

DRY. Go back and read the thread.

[G0rman]

jon.kiparsky, on 14 October 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

DRY. Go back and read the thread.

> Refusing to give examples

Don't you know it is notoriously hard to find logical fallacies in your own text?
I wrote it because I think it, if I have committed a fallacy then I won't be able to spot it.
Are you going to give me even a single example or just keep saying "you are wrong and you should know why"?

Seriously..

[macosxnerd101]

I'm just going to close this thread at this point. I think everyone has had time to make their points, and no more productive discussion is following.