Rube Goldberg Code

[crossrulz]

---

@JÞB wrote:
I may have dated myself.  GOTO <line> was a syntacticly correct statement in Applesoft BASIC

---

Possibly dating myself as well...My first programming language was GW-Basic, soon followed by QBasic.  Granted, it was at the turn of the century when I learned these.  So I do understand the GOTO 100 all too well.

[altenbach]

When I learned FORTRAN IV in the early seventies, GO TO (Yes, there was no lowercase! i.e. only 6 bit/character) was an instruction I used often when programming with paper and pencil on special paper, later to be transferred to punch-cards. Each line had a number and we typically incremented by 10(?) to leave some breathing room in case we need to add a line or two later.

To see how it was like to punch these cards, here's a simulator! Ah, the memories!!

(If you scroll down, it also shows the field structure used for FORTRAN statement)

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:
I may have dated myself.  GOTO <line> was a syntacticly correct statement in Applesoft BASIC

---

Possibly dating myself as well...My first programming language was GW-Basic, soon followed by QBasic.  Granted, it was at the turn of the century when I learned these.  So I do understand the GOTO 100 all too well.

---

Goto is a syntactically correct statement in C++...

Probably the fastest way to getting fired if you use it, but still: syntactically correct.

[AeroSoul]

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

---

Goto is a syntactically correct statement in C++...

Probably the fastest way to getting fired if you use it, but still: syntactically correct.

---

My boss uses it (in C, not C++), so i think i'm safe 😄

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@AeroSoul wrote:

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

---

Goto is a syntactically correct statement in C++...

Probably the fastest way to getting fired if you use it, but still: syntactically correct.

---

My boss uses it (in C, not C++), so i think i'm safe 😄

---

Could be one of those "do as I say not as I do" rules 😋.

[paul_cardinale]

---

@altenbach wrote:

When I learned FORTRAN IV in the early seventies, GO TO (Yes, there was no lowercase! i.e. only 6 bit/character) was an instruction I used often when programming with paper and pencil on special paper, later to be transferred to punch-cards. Each line had a number and we typically incremented by 10(?) to leave some breathing room in case we need to add a line or two later.

To see how it was like to punch these cards, here's a simulator! Ah, the memories!!

(If you scroll down, it also shows the field structure used for FORTRAN statement)

---

And since each card was one line of code, if you dropped your stack of cards ...

I college, I never saw a computer.  I would submit my card stack at a window, then go back the next day to pick up the cards and the printout.  Debugging was a slow process.

[paul_cardinale]

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@crossrulz wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:
I may have dated myself.  GOTO <line> was a syntacticly correct statement in Applesoft BASIC

---

Possibly dating myself as well...My first programming language was GW-Basic, soon followed by QBasic.  Granted, it was at the turn of the century when I learned these.  So I do understand the GOTO 100 all too well.

---

Goto is a syntactically correct statement in C++...

Probably the fastest way to getting fired if you use it, but still: syntactically correct.

---

And yet despite the absence of "goto" statements, a lot of the code that I encounter is awful.  You just can't force people to do a good job by imposing simplistic rules.

[JÞB]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

When I learned FORTRAN IV in the early seventies, GO TO (Yes, there was no lowercase! i.e. only 6 bit/character) was an instruction I used often when programming with paper and pencil on special paper, later to be transferred to punch-cards. Each line had a number and we typically incremented by 10(?) to leave some breathing room in case we need to add a line or two later.

To see how it was like to punch these cards, here's a simulator! Ah, the memories!!

(If you scroll down, it also shows the field structure used for FORTRAN statement)

---

And since each card was one line of code, if you dropped your stack of cards ...

---

You might think I'm joking but I'm serious.  That is why the Flair Tipped Marker  Became an instant success! Just draw a diagonal line across the cards of each routine on one edge and the entire stack on another edge.  Instant source code control!

The felt tip did not damage the card edges the way a pencil or pen did so, the card reader never jammed and you could reset a riffled deck and notice any missing cards.

[paul_cardinale]

---

@JÞB wrote:

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

When I learned FORTRAN IV in the early seventies, GO TO (Yes, there was no lowercase! i.e. only 6 bit/character) was an instruction I used often when programming with paper and pencil on special paper, later to be transferred to punch-cards. Each line had a number and we typically incremented by 10(?) to leave some breathing room in case we need to add a line or two later.

To see how it was like to punch these cards, here's a simulator! Ah, the memories!!

(If you scroll down, it also shows the field structure used for FORTRAN statement)

---

And since each card was one line of code, if you dropped your stack of cards ...

---

You might think I'm joking but I'm serious.  That is why the Flair Tipped Marker  Became an instant success! Just draw a diagonal line across the cards of each routine on one edge and the entire stack on another edge.  Instant source code control!

The felt tip did not damage the card edges the way a pencil or pen did so, the card reader never jammed and you could reset a riffled deck and notice any missing cards.

---

Until you edit the code: Insert, delete, rearrange.

[altenbach]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:
Until you edit the code: Insert, delete, rearrange.

---

As seen on the wikipedia page, editing can be handled: 

("A single program deck, with individual subroutines marked. The markings show the effects of editing, as cards are replaced or reordered")

Funny enough, I retained the same diagonal marking to keep 35mm slides in order (&correct orientation!), just in case I would drop one of the magazines. Since it might not be obvious which side is correct, I actually did two parallel lines, each in a different color. 😄