|XP is just a number|
Re^5: There's a level in Hell reserved for ________by mowgli (Friar)
|on Mar 04, 2003 at 13:12 UTC||Need Help??|
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.
*chuckles* I'll try not to - I've had my own share of experience with Java zealots, although those who actually are Smalltalk zealots and just have to use Java at work even though they despise it deep in their hearts are even worse. ;)
Oh, and as far as having programmed in every language is concerned - I guess that's impossible.
You do? Interesting. :) Anyhow, I can see why these people end up with you (*especially* those were the claim is actually true). ;)
Anyhow, why do you think switch (or goto, for that matter) is a low-level language concept?
Mmmm, I can't recall any assembly that features a switch instruction right now, unless you want to count C in as assembly (which has been described as an optimizing macro assembler with automatic register allocation in the past *g*). Seriously, though, I think that switch isn't that bad really; not all uses of switch boil down to (admittedly horrible, yet strangely fascinating) things like Duff's device. Besides, the Camel says that the main reason for not including switch was simply that there were many alternatives, from labelled bareblocks to foreach loops and from cascaded ?: operators to hashes - nothing hints that the exclusion of a proper switch statement might have been made due to it being too abused (or too easily abusable).
But IMO, it's all TMTOWTDI anyway - and I encourage languages to give you enough rope to hang yourself with, since that also means you'll have enough rope to tie the most beautiful and elaborate knots.
Speaking of breakfast, gotta run. Have a nice day :)
Heh. Thanks, and the same to you! ^_^