Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:15:06 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 15/04/2025 05:57, Rosario19 wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:18:39 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote: 

(While there's some "C" stuff in here it contains a lot of non-"C"
samples for comparison. So [OT]-sensible folks may want to skip
this post.)
>
On 14.04.2025 12:16, bart wrote: 

On 14/04/2025 05:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote: 

On 13.04.2025 18:39, bart wrote: 

[...]
>
    for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) { 

 
C for loop is great, but all can be workarounded with goto label 

 
For this specific example (ignore 'let' for C), please explain why it
is better than, say:
 
     FOR(i,1,36) {
 
This is 99% of my for-loops. Is it the same reasoning why I have to
write 'break' in 99% of my switch-blocks?
 
There's something about this group which celebrates these annoying
language characteristics which are only useful or meaningful in a
tiny minority of cases: see how wonderful it is for 1% of the time?
 
That must surely justify them being both a PITA and dangerously error
prone in the vast majority of cases!

I regularly use two languages with "proper loops" - Matlab/Octave and
VHDL (Ada-like syntax). When writing loops in these languages, I don't
feel any extra convenience over C. Nor do you suffer from reduced
flexibility relatively to C, except very rarely.
In other words, I don't care.

And it's not because I can become accustomed to anything. E.g. I am
using tcl for a long time. I never stopped hating most of its syntax,
including for loops.

I probably will care (i.e. dislike) language (or C macro) with the
syntax shown in your last example, but less intensely than tcl.