Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:22:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4FCF598A.463@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:22:18 -0400
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
Organization: PF
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why was there a GOTO? (was Re: GOTOs discovered in "real world" program!)
References: <7e54cf3c-d514-407b-a9b6-c0009589d242@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <d4477aa8-f837-4bee-bb40-fbcc3da179c0@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <313ed2ec-dece-43f5-b2b3-1c5a63229add@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com> <0.c82e19170840b2237717.20120606131443BST.87bokwbpsc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.223.87
X-Trace: sv3-vCUO9kkAmjEjt9BiTQhX2Xjf+KVNBbaJ53jdaZ1Cj0rzXWmHKmcuTGMVEhzTx83kB/1DPcsF13TVsBB!/mgvNLMJZewJRdZvmalPUog2pMJi+Lsvi9A1cynNUO93R9zIbakFTu+n7vlLZ16QPe3LRH0TqOtk!WMveiOnf
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3532
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:21905

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > On May 31, 5:39 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 29, 11:44 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > I've been wondering about this. _Why_ was a GOTO used in this
> > program? How could one be used in _such a high-profile program
> > like that_? And it's not just a lone GOTO or a few here and there,
> > as I said, this program is infected with a serious case of GOTOitis...
> 
> You'd have to ask the people who wrote it.
> 
> Some of the code looks extraordinary to me.  Whilst the vast majority of
> goto's are clearly of the "error cleanup" sort, they are not all like
> that.  For example there is this pattern:
> 
>         cmsgp = CMSG_FIRSTHDR(msg);
>         while (cmsgp != NULL) {
>                 socket_log(...);
> 
> #ifdef ISC_PLATFORM_HAVEIN6PKTINFO
>                 if (...) {
>                         /* stuff */
>                         goto next;
>                 }
> #endif
> 
> #ifdef SO_TIMESTAMP
>                 if (...) {
>                         /* stuff */
>                         goto next;
>                 }
> #endif
>         next:
>                 cmsgp = CMSG_NXTHDR(msg, cmsgp);
>         }
> 
> Why is this not just a for loop?
> Failing that, why not just remove the
> label and the goto's?  Maybe this is a fossilised relic of some much
> more complex code.
> 
> Although there may well be a reason
> the code ended up like this, I hope
> everyone agrees that it would be odd (to say the least)
> to write it like this from scratch.

It may be the case 
that it is, or was, somewhat common 
for expert proffesional programmers
to have accomplished a lot of proffesional programming work
before they became experts.

I recall many many years ago, 
showing some crappy looking code to my new boss,
and him telling me that because of time constraints
I would soon be writing crappy looking code too.
And he was right.
They hired me when they needed a programmer right away,
and I didn't know C or good writing style
nearly as well as I do now,
and because of time constraints, I had to program quickly.

-- 
pete