On Mar 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> Its a simple matter of knowing what the term-of-art "structured programming" means in the usual contexts its employed in. Hansen *never* wants to use words with their usual meanings in the usual contexts. I think its simply lack of education. When called, he gets bizarrely elaborate, as do many of his kindred spirits.
Do you understand what you are asking me to do? You are asking me to discard decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of lines of code, so that I can adhere to a puny school-taught notion of structured programming. What happens when someone asks you "How did they code without the GOTO statement??
For example. The following is a typical case of an IF/THEN/ELSE structure, in a language without blocks.
Do you see how you have to hop over the (logical) blocks of code with goto statements? You cannot write structured IF/THEN/ELSE patterns without goto statements in a language that doesn?t support blocks. And your reward for using best practices? You get to keep track of hundreds of labels and god forbid you have to add more statements or refactor things a bit. But as Lou pointed out, that is what a (good) programmer did because, as tedious as it was, that was still the best way to break a problem down, into a series of steps. Assembler was tons worse.
Add BEGIN/END and things change enormously for the better?
IF x < 10 BEGIN Statement 1 Statement 2 Statement 3 END ELSE BEGIN Statement 1 Statement 2 Statement 3 END
The same structure but behind the scenes the compiler is doing all of those GOTOs for you. You don?t have to worry about a bunch of labels. Talk about a load lifted! And we didn?t even get to the local scope you now have. You don?t have to declare dozens of TEMPnn and DUMMYnn variables because now you can keep using the same meaningful names in block after block because they are now in their own scope.
I don?t see what I have said as being overly elaborate. I have a lot of experience and a lot more on this subject than what I displayed here. I lived all of this. Asking me to trade all of that for your notion of structured programming is impossible at this point. I am also flummoxed that you keep calling me uneducated, but used to it, so don?t stop.
Your real problem in this discussion is that you cannot for the life of you, understand artistry. You didn?t understand it in our ?particular? discussion and you don?t understand it now. In fact, you don?t comprehend it so much that you still think I am doing some sort of a trick.