|From:||"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:13:24 +1030|
On Thursday, 3 February 2005 at 16:23:38 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > >>> I'm going to nit on this. >>> >>> Using longjmp is evil. Period. >> >> Is that the only justification you have for your opinion? > > The problem, Greg, is that when you use something like that in a > large project you basically remove a large number of programmers > from the set of programmers able to work, maintain, and extend > your code. That's a secondary issue. Not that I disagree, but my question was related to the construct only. What you say below is interesting, but not what I was talking about. > Your code is especially difficult to maintain. I'm not saying > its bad, just that it's especially difficult for people other > then yourself to wrap their hands around and actually work with > because of the lack of in-code documentation, weird code > constructions that nobody else uses, weird indentation that > doesn't seem to work with anyone else's editor, the extremely > deeply nested statements you have, lack of compartmentalization > of major function sets, and other things. I've tried to do > cleanups of your vinum code before and, believe me, it is a > frustrating experience! Sorry to hear about it. Yes, I agree, I don't exactly adhere to style(9). That's because I consider style(9) to be outdated. But it's clear that it doesn't make my code any easier to read for those people who are used to style(9). > Now, so you don't feel bad, Kirk's code comes in a close second. Heh. I don't feel bad :-) But thanks, anyway. > It's probably a generational thing. One of the reasons why I am > allowing people to do major cleanups of our code base is > precisely to try to make the code more maintainable and more > comfortable for more recent generations of programmers. Paradoxically (as I said above), I think the current code style is older. To get back to the topic, I think that setjmp/longjmp is a more modern construct. Admittedly it's (marginally) more difficult to understand setjmp/longjmp than it is to understand a chain of function returns, and there's additional potential to break something, but I don't see either of these as serious, and I do see the advantages as significant, particularly in the untidy area of checking return codes at every step. You obviously don't, and I was asking about your reasons. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html Finger grog@xxxxxxxxx for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
Description: PGP signature