From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ron@ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:20:31 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Comments on "C" In-Reply-To: References: <20160908133038.CF61818C0CB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <008601d20a06$11aa2310$34fe6930$@ronnatalie.com> Efficiency isn't always the issue. Even with the single layer break (and certainly with the local goto) you can break structure. The language, in my opinion, doesn't need further ways to break structure. I'd have settled for a more robust preprocessor language, but such is life with what was a ground breaking language back in the 70's. Most of my complaints about C are because it's "standard" library was awful back in the seventies and it really didn't improve much over the years. -----Original Message----- From: TUHS [mailto:tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:23 AM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org Subject: Re: [TUHS] Comments on "C" Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > 1. Computed goto > > Can't you make a switch statement do what you need there? Interesting comments on how effectively CPUs and compilers handle inner loops of interpreters: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/75426 Lots more research on interpreter efficiency: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/projects/interpreters.html Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode German Bight, Humber, Thames: Southwest 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times. Smooth or slight, occasionally moderate. Mainly fair. Good, occasionally poor.