Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like language

compilers@is-not-my.name
Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:23:33 -0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[29 earlier articles]
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2011-01-06)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2011-01-06)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2011-01-08)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2011-01-10)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-10)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2011-01-10)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like compilers@is-not-my.name (2011-01-10)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2011-01-12)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2011-01-12)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2011-01-12)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2011-01-12)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-13)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-13)
[20 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:23:33 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 11-01-025
Keywords: history
Posted-Date: 12 Jan 2011 00:17:03 EST

> Why do so many languages offer (at least) two forms of conditional
> loop: one with the test at the beginning and another with the test at
> the end? Why not just offer an infinite loop and a way to break out
> that can be tied to any conditional?


Because industry listened to academics, and they shouldn't have,
ever. I always said the two worst things that ever happened to the
software industry were Wirth and Dijkstra. Object COBOL?! Where will
it end?


Remember the good old days when there was no conditional loop? Either
you checked a condition and did a GO TO or you didn't have a
loop. Life was good and simple. And yes, I still prefer my source code
in all caps.


[Yeah, I remember those days, making drum cards for the keypunch where
I was fixing my Fortran programs. Can't say I miss them much. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.