Dear GOTO Supporters,

You advocate GOTO because of the single use case: nested resource cleanup. You only focus on this, lone, "good" example.. none of the bad points, you are short sighted. Your short sight prohibits moving on to better control structures. Your type is the same as those that claim stem cell research is immoral on religious grounds, ignoring the fact it could save millions of lives. I hate you.

jmp

By ``moving on'' you mean ``using an arbitrarily smaller toolset that doesn't get the job done''.  yawn, ihbt

Hi, this thread is all about gotos, REAL GOTOS.  This thread is awesome.    My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about gotos.  These statements are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.


Facts:

1.    Gotos are statements.
2.    Gotos change execution flow ALL the time.
3.    The purpose of the goto is to flip out and jump to a label.

Gotos can jump anywhere they want!  Gotos cut off loops ALL the time and don't even think twice about it.  These statements are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time.  I heard that there was this goto who was sitting at a nested loop.  And when some function dropped an error and the goto jumped out all the loops.  My friend Mark said that he saw a goto totally skip some noob code just because the kid opened a window.

nuff' said

All has been said in >>3,4 and >>10.

>>1

if(OP==bith)
    anus=IHBT;
else
    anus=YHBT;
if(OP==bith)
    goto nigger;
goto jews;

nigger:anus=IHBT;
goto end;
jews:anus=YHBT;
goto end;

end: YHBT=true;

ba > goto < jmp

jgle > ba > goto < jmp < jgle

jgle
JuMP is Greater, Less or Equal
<=>

nested in a sea of loops? use goto

want to really fuck with people use goto's instead of loops

apart from nested loop breaking,  the other scenario where i like it is when using some library that involves getting various things which need to be released.

eg

int foo() {
  int n;
  bitch_t bitch;
  cunt_t cunt;
  clit_t clit;

  n = cuntlib_get_bitch(&bitch));
  if(n) {
    printf("get bitch error");
    goto end;
  }

  n = cuntlib_get_cunt(&bitch,&cunt));
  if(n) {
    printf("get cunt error");
    goto freebitch;
  }

  n = cuntlib_get_clit(&cunt,&clit));
  if(n) {
    printf("get clit error");
    goto end;
  }

  cuntlib_rub_clit(&clit);

freeclit:
  cuntlib_release(&clit);

freecunt:
  cuntlib_release(&cunt);

freebitch:
  cuntlib_release(&bitch);

end:
  return n;
}

the way non-goto users (eg MS sample-writers) would do this is to have a big clusterfuck of nested ifs which looks ugly as your mother in the morning.

>>11
in before second goto end is wrong  (should be goto freecunt;)

>>11
Same as switch, because it also uses gotos.

>>11
Same as control structure, because it also uses gotos.

>>11
libpng usage is a prime candidate for this

>>11
Sames as IHBT, because it also uses U MAD.

>>11
The Go Programming Language has defer statements that cover this usage of goto.

You advocate GOTO because of the single use case: nested resource cleanup.
I actually wrote multiple times on the valid use cases for gotos. I don't really feel like writing it up again, so here's one of my old posts: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1288147924/15
You only focus on this, lone, "good" example.. none of the bad points, you are short sighted.
There are quite a few acceptable usages, however when you make use of some language feature, you are making a trade-off of some sorts. When I need to write something, I pick the language feature that is the most close to describing my problem and my needs. While such a feature can be the unconditional jump, it's not really a common occurance.
Your short sight prohibits moving on to better control structures.
You are short-sighted for thinking that the availability of some language feature means constant usage. Of the very large variety of language features that I'm provided with, I use some quite often, while others much more rarely. The choice of which feature to use depends on my needs and how well do those features fit the problem at hand.

I fear what you are afraid here is the uneducated BASIC programmer who has never learned simple structured programming (at least) - you fear he will avoid loops, conditionals and other flow-control statements in favor of using goto for everything, thus making his code an unreadable mess.
The language features here are not to blame. The bad programmer is to blame for producing bad code. A good programmer understands his language and knows what the features are for and how to use them, he may also have developed a good programming style that will make his code more maintainable by others or his future self.

You are advocating removal of useful features, not improving languages.

Your type is the same as those that claim stem cell research is immoral on religious grounds, ignoring the fact it could save millions of lives.

I have no qualms with stem cell research. My understanding of self is that we are the electrical pattern of our brain (what we experience right now and what keeps us alive), and that we are our neurons (our memories which drive everything we do and think) . I don't see any identity or self in a bunch of baby cells without a central nervous system, much less cells derived from adult stem cells. I'm also not a religious person. I strongly approve of research into fields which can improve human lives. This is hardly a topic for /prog/

I hate you.
I think your hatred is misdirected, but if it feels better, you're free to hate anyone.

http://kerneltrap.org/node/553/2131

>>19
OOOH LINUX LET ME KISS AND FEEL YOUR BOTTOM

>>17
Your ``GPL'' has The Forced Capitalisation of Exported Symbols. Obviously, The D Programming Language lets you do what the fuck you want, everywhere, for everything.

>>19
No, you've been brainwashed by CS people who thought that Niklaus Wirth actually knew what he was talking about. He didn't. He doesn't have a frigging clue.

Couldn't agree more. Goto haters should stop replaying someone else's opinions and get down to some actual programming.