Jump to content

Talk:Considered harmful

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a stub

[edit]

I removed the "stub" designation for this article, as I didn't feel it could reasonably be expanded. - Scooter 18:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004675.html has some more information that could fit here. Schutz 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples

[edit]

Here's another example that I did not put into the "other well-known 'considered harmful' essays" section because (ta-da!) if it isn't there already, maybe it isn't well-known:

Paul Abrahams (April 1975). "Structured Programming Considered Harmful", SIGPLAN Notices 10 (4): 13-24

Jim 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the First Letter

[edit]

This Article says it was Niklaus Wirth and not Edsger. Would change it myself but I am scared of editing References ;-)

The March 1968 ACM letter's famous title, "Go To Statement Considered Harmful", [1] was not the work of Dijkstra, but of Niklaus Wirth, vs
It was popularized by Edsger Dijkstra's letter "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.156.181 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article already says the same thing, in the first paragraph: "The original title of the letter, as submitted to CACM, was "A Case Against the Goto Statement," but CACM editor Niklaus Wirth changed the title to the now immortalized "Go To Statement Considered Harmful."[4]" RossPatterson (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this theory?

[edit]

I've read the article, and feel I haven't gained any knowledge about Dijkstra's theory about avoiding "GOTO". Why is it not preferable, aside from the obvious (but now effectively negligible) time it takes to put a new value in the program counter? Wilsonsamm (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Dijkstra's letter that started the whole "considered harmful" debate and meme. It's reference #2 in the article. He makes his case very clearly. RossPatterson (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilsonsamm, read the goto and spaghetti code articles. —Lowellian (reply) 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goto Considered Harmful

[edit]

I'm really disappointed with this article. Not only are articles linked here for exposition of "Goto considered harmful", but this article seems to be at odds with the article on Dijkstra, which states that Nicholas Wirth published the article bearing the "considered harmful" terminology, not Dijkstra. 70.251.148.39 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is the point of this page?

[edit]

Lots of things are "considered harmful". Smoking, exposure to the sun. Is the page supposed to be a list of every progrming construct that anyone every wrote an article criticising and happend to use that particular fairly common phrase? Seems un wikipeida ish to say the least.

132.3.33.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from the article that this was/is a specialised 'unexpected' use of the phrase to emphasise the harmful nature of a programming construct.
Everyone knows smoking is harmful; at the time, not every saw the danger of the goto statement.
peterl (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the letter appeared many programmers, especially those using Fortran, saw GOTO as necessary to programming. Those using assembler were of a similar mind, because they assumed Fortran's GOTO was their "JMP" instruction, which obviously could not be avoided. One of the major tasks in programming was to pick apart, flowchart, and possibly understand existing large programs. Refactoring (as we would do now) was seen as totally infeasible, because it would require keypunching thousands of cards, followed by months of tedious debugging, to no apparent benefit. Snezzy (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also worth commenting that Wirth, in at least his early compilers, was a fairly heavy user of GOTO (GO TO in at least some ALGOL implementations). Taking that into account, I think that there might have been at least a small amount of incredulity or even sarcasm in his choice of title. See Wirth's Euler compiler written in Burroughs ALGOL at [1], noting that this project will probably move shortly. MarkMLl (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Considered harmful. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Considered harmful. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Considered_harmful&oldid=1201110583"