🚀 go-pugleaf

sam@kalessin.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Sirlin)writes:

> >In article <3147F456.50F0@simi.is>, Björn Helgason <bjornhp@simi.is> writes:
>|> In most instances they are not needed. I might add that in ALL cases
>|> you could avoid GOTOs and LOOPs if you really put your mind to it.

> Hmm. Doesn't seem that way to me. There are certain analysis
> algorithms that must be sequential. 

I agree with you that when you are looking at a challenge for the 
first time and observing the phenomena you want to put into coding
then it is in most cases for most human beings easier to think 
about things sequentially.

If you had unlimited space in your computer my experience is that 
ALL challenges I have come across could be solved without the
need to use the loops provided in the language.

Unfortunately most Von Neuman computers take only one instruction 
at a time and are therefore sequential however clever you want
to be in your coding and most implemnetations of languages are
limited in the space they allow you to work in.

I wonder what happened to the optical computer that was presented
to us at APL90 in Copenhagen. It was supposed to work on many 
things in parallel. Has that project died ?


> |> In the most advanced of languages, J , there were no GOTOs or LOOPs in
> |> the beginning. They have been introduced in the most recent versions
>|> of J and are now a well appreciated part of J.

> Hmm. Goto's were in existance in J from the beginning, in the suite
> ($...), though I can't say about the very first version of the code.

You are right. The suite was there. It could hardly be described as
ordinary GOTOs. They were way to clever. It took me two years to 
figure them out.

--
Sam Sirlin                Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Email: sam@kalessin.jpl.nasa.gov

-- 
/Gosi
bjornhp@simi.is Bjorn Helgason Spitalastig 4 101 Reykjavik Iceland 354 
562 5441
http://www.jsoftware.com