11–20 of 319 posts
I know for C it’s unthinkable to standardize such a luxury like defer or destructors, so we’re going to relive arguments from 1968 for as long as C is used.
> Bad code is the product of bad programmers This person is living in a pretend bubble that isn't grounded in the reality of large projects, multiple team members, deadlines, changing requirements, etc. No programmer is perfect. And when your tool can cut your arm off, you should be careful or route around the dangerous bits when possible.
There have been a bunch of major security vulnerabilities due to mistakes involving GOTO in C, being used as suggested by the article. Here’s a memorable one: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
There have been a bunch of major security vulnerabilities due to mistakes involving GOTO in C, being used as suggested by the article. Here’s a memorable one: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
There have been a bunch of major security vulnerabilities due to mistakes involving GOTO in C, being used as suggested by the article. Here’s a memorable one: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
Many people seem to really dislike using the brackets but this is what that gets you.
There have been a bunch of major security vulnerabilities due to mistakes involving GOTO in C, being used as suggested by the article. Here’s a memorable one: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
> Bad code is the product of bad programmers This person is living in a pretend bubble that isn't grounded in the reality of large projects, multiple team members, deadlines, changing requirements, etc. No programmer is perfect. And when your tool can cut your arm off, you should be careful or route around the dangerous bits when possible.
However, I always find myself missing it when writing nested loops. Labeled break and continue[1] ought to be considered standard structure programming primitives. These are restricted gotos and allowing them to break or continue a parent loop doesn't unrestrict them much. But it does significantly improve the expressive power of your looping constructs.
[0] C++, Rust, Go, or anything else with automatic memory management and destructors
[1] I've also heard of numbered break/continue. Personally I think this isn't good enough: what if I need to move loops around? That will change the meaning of a `break 2`. With a `break OUTER` the compiler will yell at me if I remove the outer loop without changing all the code that breaks out of it to target a different one.