Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:32:08 11/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2003 at 05:00:48, Johan de Koning wrote: >On October 31, 2003 at 10:27:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 31, 2003 at 01:36:17, Johan de Koning wrote: >> >>>On October 30, 2003 at 09:44:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 29, 2003 at 13:39:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>>It's like saying using 'goto' is ok in a programming environment. Where this is >>>>>certainly true, it should not be a policy to do so :) >>>> >>>>Eh? _every_ program you write has goto's. (aka jumps). They are not >>>>bad. In fact, they are _unavoidable_. >>> >>>OT1: They *are* avoidable. >>>Any finite algorithm that does not depend on mid-execution input (typically >>>time) can be written as 1 single expression. It would of course be huge and >>>run rather slowly without quantum computing. >> >>I don't know how you can possibly encode a loop into a complex expression, >>not knowing beforehand how many loop iterations will be needed... > >By expanding all possibilities. What if you don't know how many possibilities there are. IE repetition checking. Etc.. I understand the simple cases with boolean controlling expressions. >E.g. part of the WKinCheck subexpression might look like: > >( > X[e1] == WK > & > ( (X[f2] == BB | X[f2] == BQ) > | (X[f2] == NOP & (X[g3] == BB | X[g3] == BQ)) > | (X[f2] == NOP & X[g3] == NOP & (X[h4] == BB | X[h4] == BQ)) > | d2, c3, etc, etc ) >) >| >( > X[f1] == WK > etc >) >etc > >I did say *huge*, didn't I ? :-) > >>>OT2: You *know* what he means. >>>There's no need to remove the quotes around 'goto' and change the subject, >>>just to contradict. >> >>I happen to be one of those that believes "gotos are _not_ a bad thing." >>Yes, it is possible to "hide" them within the semantics of a programming >>language. "break" comes to mind, as does "continue" (both in C of course.) >>But they _are_ gotos. They are implemented as jumps. The only advantage to >>using them is that they give you a hint as to where the goto is going, without >>your having to look for a label, when reading source. But to say that there >>are no gotos is simply wrong. It looks like a goto. It smells like a goto. >>It acts like a goto. It just isn't spelled "goto". > >I'm afraid everyone agrees on the use of the *keyword* goto. >Whether you like it or not. > >>>BTW: this isn't personal. >>>In fact I'd advice *everyone* not to contradict Vincent. >>>That would halve the posting volume, i.e. raising the signal/noise by 6 dB. :-) >> >>If noone contradicts him, the incredible amount of disinformation he produces >>will cause at least beginners to make bad mistakes. If they only believe 1% of >>the disinformation he produces, that is a significant number of errors that >>they will have to deal with. I think the onus is on everyone to try to stamp >>out such errors, when possible. IE that's what a university is all about. > >If it's dangerous *and* well disguised, a contradiction might actually add to >the signal. But all other (= most) cases can safely be left as an exercise for >the reader. After all, university is about thinking. > >... Johan It is more about "teaching how to think" when you think about it (the university).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.