Now we're all just peeing in a pot and claiming it's raining. My example was simply following what kpedersen used except for my use of camel case (simply because current $WORKPLACE coding standards....)
ClassContainingIdNameEmployeeNumberDepartmentPointerAndManagerId classContainingIdNameEmployeeNumberDepartmentPointerAndManagerId = findEmp();Well there are only 2 hard problems in computer engineering. Naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors.Code:ClassContainingIdNameEmployeeNumberDepartmentPointerAndManagerId myemp = findEmp();
I also dislike it when *lazy* programmers aren't descriptive with their naming.
Funny man.
As an advertisement - https://leanpub.com/cpp20
. Ok, that didn't kill OOP, but it changed what's considered a good OOP design.)While I might not be as old as you I've been told that I'm certainly decades ahead on the grumpy-ness. But is it really my fault that most things seem to truly suck these days?Grumpy old software architect here, [...], well on par with the worst stuff you could create with "goto" as your only control structure
goto is the superior solution (yes, also in terms of readability).
Don't really know why argue? There's a reason I wrote "as your only control structure"
Yeah, I might have chosen my words poorly there. I did not mean to argue against youDon't really know why argue? There's a reason I wrote "as your only control structure"
goto is a huge gain in some (often idiomatic) cases when the language is somewhat close to machine code (e.g. requires explicit resource management). In other words, it has a few very good uses in C and, to a lesser extent, C++.goto. For your typical scenarios, you're much better off using try-finally and/or using blocks. In C++, you could do a similar thing if you want to wrap everything with exceptions and strictly follow RAII. But that's another story (IMHO the combination of exceptions with explicit resource management is a broken concept), I don't think that's always a good idea. In C, trying to dogmatically avoid goto where you'd normally need it just leads to weird things like abusing other control structures in creative ways, so yes, unreadable code.What is an outdated language anyway? Either it's the right tool for the job or it isn't. The only thing that changes is that more choices become available as time moves forward.
I personally don't think BSD is dying. what is really dying is people's ability to understand the needs of each industrial sector, today students want something ready, so that they can just enjoy the algorithm that we spend day and night implementing
It is very easy to see that "goto" is more expressive and hence better readable if one do not abuse of it.
Try this:
(define (fib n)
(if (< n 2)
n
(let* ((k (quotient (+ n 1) 2)) (fk-1 (fib (- k 1))) (fk (fib k)))
(if (even? n) (* fk (+ fk (* 2 fk-1))) (+ (* fk fk) (* fk-1 fk-1))))))(time (begin (fib 10000000) #t))gsi-gambit from gambit-c.now change the position if performance is the case then develop a more effective algorithm for this problem that is the goal of this thread
Well, this is the achievement/fault of this man here:
