|
<quote Booth, Martin wrote> The only compelling reason I've ever seen is for ease of maintenance for non-RPG programmers. The assumption must be that non-RPG programmers aren't smart enough to understand the cycle. I don't happen to accept that particular assumption. </quote> The only compelling reason I've ever seen to use a language that was designed under the excessively, outdated simple concept of "Input, Processing, Output", other than for the purpose of honoring the elderly, is because you can avoid the 'Cycle', and build a programs with a structured approach, rather than stick to this antiquated method. Personally, programming using the cycle is having to re-invent a way to make the cycle do what you want every time, not the converse. I wouldn't be too stupid to learn to re-write this message in Latin, if I had to learn it, but that would be truly purpose-less in this context, and by not doing so, it doesn't mean that I am not capable. Tony Carolla MedAmerica Billing Services, Inc.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.