"... I can't remember the last time I saw a program with a complicated control flow done by gotos."
Perhaps not "complicated" enough, but here's a fizzbuzz in spitbol (a fast SNOBOL interpreter). This is an unstructured, goto based language for non-numeric computation developed at Bell Labs. Would love to see a faster version in some popular, "structured" scripting language in the same number of characters. I find I can write scripts in more aesthetically pleasing ways than with "structured" languages.
But of course aesthetics is subjective. (The term "subjective" here means what looks good to you might not look good to me, and vice versa.)
;var a = 0
;start a = a + 1
;break lt(a,101) :f(end)
;x01 y = remdr(a,3)
;x02 z = remdr(a,5)
;x03 x = y + z
;x01a eq(x,0) :s(x06)
;x02a eq(y,0) :s(x04)
;x03a eq(z,0) :s(x05)f(x07)
;x04 output = 'fizz' :(start)
;x05 output = 'buzz' :(start)
;x06 output = 'fizzbuzz' :(start)
;x07 output = a :(start)
;end
Perhaps the unintended benefit of gotos is that it becomes foolish to try to construct overly complex control flow. Whereas stuctured programmming seems to encourage control flow complexity. The use of the phrase "complicated control flow" in the parent comment is a great example. It suggests for the author structured programming allows and arguably therefore encourages such complexity. But what benefit is served by creating "complicated control flow". Why not aim for simpler control flow.
Perhaps not "complicated" enough, but here's a fizzbuzz in spitbol (a fast SNOBOL interpreter). This is an unstructured, goto based language for non-numeric computation developed at Bell Labs. Would love to see a faster version in some popular, "structured" scripting language in the same number of characters. I find I can write scripts in more aesthetically pleasing ways than with "structured" languages. But of course aesthetics is subjective. (The term "subjective" here means what looks good to you might not look good to me, and vice versa.)
Perhaps the unintended benefit of gotos is that it becomes foolish to try to construct overly complex control flow. Whereas stuctured programmming seems to encourage control flow complexity. The use of the phrase "complicated control flow" in the parent comment is a great example. It suggests for the author structured programming allows and arguably therefore encourages such complexity. But what benefit is served by creating "complicated control flow". Why not aim for simpler control flow.