And even then, BASIC’s GOTO is homage to FORTRAN’s GOTO.
Dad ranted to me once about GOTO. He said it spoiled programming and let everybody just take the lazy way out. I never got him to really coherently explain what he thought people should use instead, though.
Just a guess – if you wanted to hide some bad or unfinished code, stick a GOTO at the end of it so that whether the code works or not, the result is the same, for either way, you end up where the GOTO sends you.
Personally, I don’t think Rand is a sociopath because he doesn’t do pro bono or give enough to charity.
I think he’s a sociopath because he really cant comprehend why he should.
Or perhaps GOTO’s propensity to cause infinite loops – sort of like RR’s thought process.
I’ve started a “GOTO lazy programming?” thread. It won’t do anything to help RR with his problem, but I’m curious to see how the GOTO fell from grace: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12992828#post12992828
[sidetrack]Probably because it encourages “spaghetti”-code. Or, to put it in understandable terms, because the continued use of GOTO results in illegible programs (any code might end up at any other point, playing with variables, etc.) [/sidetrack]
The brute strength of the machine has made the autistic elegance of the true programmer redundant, pointless. Back in the day, they prided themselves on squeezing every last drop of machine power from lean sources. Now, really, who cares? An elegant program runs in microseconds, the spaghetti lump of kluge runs in the blink of an eye. So what? You know its sloppy, your co-worker knows its sloppy, maybe even your boss knows its sloppy. But the guy who writes the checks doesn’t know shit and can’t tell the difference, so everybody’s happy, and can go out and buy new shoes to stare at.
And, everyone, this is the reason I keep repeating myself–SFG (and others) don’t read what I write and simply follow their line of argument back around in a circle without actually understanding what’s going on.
SFG, I thought we narrowed down the issue. You said I promised to do pro bono. I showed how I didn’t promise to do pro bono because (i) all I promised to do was abide by the rules and (ii) one may abide by the rules without doing pro bono.
There, I stated it all without using the word “requirement.” Does that make you happy?
The rules also say that lawyers are supposed to aspire to do Pro Bono work; yet you clearly don’t aspire to do so.
Nope. The Illinois rules very simply do not say that.
Yes, they very clearly do. You just keep pretending they don’t.
The Model Rules say that a lawyer “should aspire” to do pro bono work. The Illinois rules don’t say a word about pro bono. The preamble to the Illinois rules say that a lawyer “has a responsibility” to do pro bono. So, the Illinois rules do not say that a lawyer should aspire to do pro bono.
So you admit to being irresponsible then?
Back on page 439 I admitted to failing to do something that the preamble to the rules say I have a responsibility to do. So there (nyah).
Non sequitur? Look, Humpty, I’m surprised that you’d pretend to be too dumb to understand how the quote relates to your posts, but suit yourself.
And “discussion” seems to be another word you define differently from everyone else. This is more like Monty Python’s Argument Clinic. (Sorry, let me translate that to Dumptyese. I meant Glory Clinic.)
Glad you’re keeping score.
Colibri, I think it’s fairly apparent that others are the ones getting hung up on the meanings of words (SFG especially). I’ve explained very clearly what I mean by the terms I use. Others have just come tromping in with “you have an obligation! It’s not a requirement,sure, but it’s still an obligation!” as if that means anything.
You take my multiple attempts at pain-staking clarity as the exact opposite. I’m not sure what you think you’ve won by doing that.
Yes, in Randyland, words can mean whatever **Randy **finds convenient.
And this solipsist claims to actually be a college graduate.
EL, insightful as always.
Something along those lines. I think there might have been something about obsfuscation, too.
Exactly.
But you haven’t done any of this. The rules clearly state that you have a responsibility to do pro bono. For you to say that you have no responsibility to do so because you have no requirement is therefore 100% wrong. Until you admit that you are *failing *to live up to that responsibility, you will continue to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
By that logic, I should be able to claim that when *I *say you’re someone who rapes his daughter every night, I *mean *that you agreed to a responsibility and then reneged on it. And *you *shouldn’t be able to complain about it. Because I’ve *explained very clearly *what I mean!
Now get your cock out of that sweet toddler’s crotch. She’s getting blood all over the teddy bear sheets.