This is our veteran Forum Member @alto777 who has kindly quoted the above-mentioned Journal Paper of ACM-1968 on the harmfulness of goto statement in this thread. I have gone through the paper few times, and naturally it has not been possible for me to uderstand many of the concepts of the paper written by a distingished Computer Scientist and Software Developer, Edsger Dijkstra -- a name that I came across in my Masters class some 33 years ago. First of all, before I put what I have not understood properly in this journal paper, I wish to hear from the Forum Members why the C++ Languge Specifications still do contain goto statement though Edsger Dijkstra asked for its abandonment in the referred paper some 56 years ago?

gotos are useful when handling exceptions. when done properly, they can very significantly simplify the code and make it easier to maintain

Does GOTO allow multiple entrances into contexts? I can see escaping from a deeply nested structure, but would it allow the converse of re-entering into that structure? From potentially multiple entry points? Ancient FORTRAN and BASIC serial code didn’t really have stack frames to discard. Does goto discard the intervening stack frames? Edit: Yes, it does discard the local variables: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/goto

Interesting as well at the linked article is the part that begins If transfer of control enters the scope of any automatic variables… and I'm glad I don't have to even worry about it. a7

From this thread I learned that the common “combine these two sketches” query is often like an ugly “combine these two flowcharts“ problem that would be better served by “translate the sketches’ flowcharts into NSD diagrams“ Hat-tip: [image] Understanding the harmfulness of goto statement referring to Edsger Dijkstra's Journal Paper of ACM-1968 Programming Questions The problem is, that a flow chart doesn't force you to plan structured programming. If the flow chart already is unstructured, it is difficult to write an according program in a structured manner. But that should be the responsibility of the teacher - to advice the pupils to already plan structured. The NSD instead of a flow chart forces you to plan structured. Of course you can also plan structured programs with a flow chart - but then its your responsibility. You can plan really ugly spaghet…

[image] DaveX: From this thread I learned that the common “combine these two sketches” I make my coding style up as I go along and my mental picture is informed from something I read somewhere at some time that just happened to use the word "wrapper". So, what if the main thing? What is the next thing inside that that depends on the main thing? What's the next thing inside that second thing and so on.

@Robin2's planning tutorial is excellent in demonstrating working down through the "wrappers" in an Arduino context: [image] Planning and Implementing an Arduino Program Programming From what I can see there are many tutorials about doing specific tasks with an Arduino but I have not come across any that guide a newcomer through the process of planning and implementing a program to make it easy to understand and debug. The following 9 posts in this Thread are an attempt to fill that gap. ...R

[image] DaveX: planning tutorial is excellent in demonstrating working down through the "wrappers" in an Arduino context: Thanks, bud! First I've seen of this, I'll check it out! Respect to @Robin2 and a :saluting_face: to you!

[image] GolamMostafa: [image] MicroBahner: At least flow charts should be used with caution. Your remark mirrors what Dijkstra said back in 1968 in the referred Journal paper by this precise statement: "The unbridled use of the goto statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress." which when submitted to ChatGPT for analytic meaning, it has offered the following that does not require any paraphrasing. A journal paper typically spans 10 to 15 pages on A4-sized paper; whereas, Dijkstra's paper is only one and a half pages long which implies that the information has been condensed by a factor of eight. I have seen similar papers in many technical conference proceedings and journals, often submitted by renowned experts. I have been expecting that some of the contributors of this thread by virtue of their knowledge and experience, would elaborate on the glittering meanings of this widely read journal paper although some posters have provided general insights and NOT paragraph-by-paragraph. Due to my own limitations, I have not felt capable of analyzing the paper; instead, (with good intentions), I have submitted my preferred paragraph #11 of the paper to ChatGPT to explore its analytical meaning being known that the AI collects information from the knowledgebase of other people. Being inline with my plan, I have submitted the outcome of AI unchanged in this thread for constructive criticism by the forum members to asses how close/apart the AI's interpretation is to/from what Dijkstra's has said in his condensed paper. ChatGPT/AI is not always as good as a human being, which has been revealed by its recent inability to provide the synonym "uncontrolled" for the word "unbridled" of paragraph #11 of the said journal paper. However, it is still helpful in offering clues and codes to resolve complex programming issues. History of science shows that people have always strived to devise new tools to meet their needs, and ChatGPT/AI is one of such tools that should be used with proper judgement.

ChatGPT is nowadays used in an extensive way to write papers, especially in the non-tecnical world where nobody tries to replicate or verify results. "Surprisingly" the quality of papers did not suffer. I think this tells a lot of the overall quality of scientific papers (there were some profound studies on the decline of papers published some 5 years ago - > 90% of all published papers are not worth the virtual paper they are written on).

[image] zwieblum: there were some profound studies on the decline of papers published some 5 years ago - > 90% of all published papers are not worth the virtual paper they are written on There has been a vicious circle in the scientific community for years. Researchers and PhD students need to publish papers to secure funding or prepare for their thesis defence, and publishing is increasingly costly (many thousands of euros to submit a paper in leading journals). As the number of publications influences funding renewal and the reputation of the lab, researchers are driven to produce more publications, often of lesser quality and richness of content. Reviewers, who are compensated for their work, may also benefit from reviewing more papers. This has driven the quality downward ➜ The system is largely broken. [image] GolamMostafa: whereas, Dijkstra's paper is only one and a half pages long which implies that the information has been condensed by a factor of eight Nope — that was the whole article at the time. You'll remark that he wrote I now submit my considerations for publication because in very recent discussions in which the subject turned up, I have been urged to do so. Dijkstra's decision to publish the letter was possibly influenced by discussions with colleagues which likely took place within his professional circle. At the time there was the famous "Tuesday Afternoon Club," a seminar group where Dijkstra and his peers rigorously scrutinised scientific papers and discussed various aspects of computer science. If you read Edsger W. Dijkstra: Brilliant, colourful, and opinionated you'll see they mention Many of Dijkstra’s papers, often just a few pages long, are the source of new research areas. and he was known for these "short pieces" breaking new grounds and triggering more debates and research, progressing the domain - in the article you'll see as well He wrote his articles in a unique style characterised by conciseness, economy of argument, and clarity of exposition. Each sentence was carefully chiselled. Each paragraph was striking. You'll also read the story about the famous "Tuesday Afternoon Club". The "concision and economy of argument" makes it harder to decode if you miss the formal culture (mathematical and computer theory) that was in vogue at the time.

Understanding the harmfulness of goto statement referring to Edsger Dijkstra's Journal Paper of ACM-1968

Projects Programming

DaveX May 27, 2024, 10:59pm 148

@Robin2's planning tutorial is excellent in demonstrating working down through the "wrappers" in an Arduino context:

Topic		Replies	Views
How to get rid of goto statement? Programming	84	2448	June 26, 2023
HOW TO USE GOTO STATEMENT IN ARDUINO General Guidance	83	101091	April 11, 2019
goto statements in arduino. Programming	37	8712	November 28, 2015
goto - ever used it? Programming	24	3733	March 1, 2016
The Ghost in the Compiler: Why your Arduino code disappears (An Assembly Visual Proof) Programming	156	1909	July 3, 2026

Understanding the harmfulness of goto statement referring to Edsger Dijkstra's Journal Paper of ACM-1968

Related topics