🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <id.DDWU.KZ4@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
|> In article <BxDH7G.8Cn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> > Those who rewrote my code without gotos had to work to do it.
|> 
|> Who cares?
|> 
|> The goal, after all, isn't eliminating the gotos. It's producing maintainable
|> code. The version I wrote from your code had just as many gotos (some were
|> switch statements, but it's a 5 minute job to convert them all back and
|> forth), but it was a lot more readable and maintainable. And I probably spent
|> less time on it than you spent on the code in the first place.
|> 
|> Frankly, your coding style as we've seen it on the net is so bad nobody can
|> take seriously any claim that minor syntax changes will make an atom of
|> difference to your productivity.

And yet, You're the one who just finished defending the use of *raw*
pointers in the same way that Dr. Rubin uses *raw* GOTOs.  You obviously
*understand* the concept of replacing such monstrosities with legible
structures, yet you support doing so only in *one* case.  Why?

-- 
J. Giles