ALGOL 58 , originally named IAL , is one of the family of ALGOL computer programming languages . It was an early compromise design soon superseded by ALGOL 60 . According to John Backus :
67-469: The Zurich ACM-GAMM Conference had two principal motives in proposing the IAL: (a) To provide a means of communicating numerical methods and other procedures between people, and (b) To provide a means of realizing a stated process on a variety of machines... ALGOL 58 introduced the fundamental notion of the compound statement , but it was restricted to control flow only, and it was not tied to identifier scope in
134-437: A Turing machine , with the caveat that code duplication and additional variables may need to be introduced. The use of goto was formerly common, but since the advent of structured programming in the 1960s and 1970s, its use has declined significantly. It remains in use in certain common usage patterns , but alternatives are generally used if available. In the past, there was considerable debate in academia and industry on
201-527: A GOTO statement that unwinds the stack for an out of block transfer and does not permit a transfer into a block from outside of it. Other languages may have their own separate keywords for explicit fallthroughs, which can be considered a version of goto restricted to this specific purpose. For example, Go uses the fallthrough keyword and doesn't allow implicit fallthrough at all, while Perl 5 uses next for explicit fallthrough by default, but also allows setting implicit fallthrough as default behavior for
268-487: A basis for JOVIAL , MAD , NELIAC and ALGO . It was also used during 1959 to publish algorithms in CACM , beginning a trend of using ALGOL notation in publication that continued for many years. Statement (computer science)#Compound statements In computer programming , a statement is a syntactic unit of an imperative programming language that expresses some action to be carried out. A program written in such
335-470: A branch. The value of a label variable includes the address of a stack frame, and a goto out of block pops the stack. A simpler way to get an equivalent result is using a label constant array that doesn't even need an explicit declaration of a LABEL type variable: In a DOS batch file , Goto directs execution to a label that begins with a colon. The target of the Goto can be a variable. Many languages support
402-637: A flag ( 'begin ), quotation marks ( 'begin' ), or underlined ( begin on the Elliott 503 ). This is called "stropping". Tokens that are part of the language syntax thus do not conflict with programmer-defined names. Certain names are reserved as part of the programming language and can not be used as programmer-defined names. The majority of the most popular programming languages use reserved keywords. Early examples include FLOW-MATIC (1953) and COBOL (1959). Since 1970 other examples include Ada, C, C++, Java, and Pascal. The number of reserved words depends on
469-430: A function can be extraordinarily inefficient in some languages; a prime example is Objective-C , where a goto is a much faster alternative. Another use of goto statements is to modify poorly factored legacy code , where avoiding a goto would require extensive refactoring or code duplication . For example, given a large function where only certain code is of interest, a goto statement allows one to jump to or from only
536-457: A label outside of the current scope, and respects object disposal and finally constructs, making it significantly less powerful and dangerous than the goto keyword in other programming languages. It also makes case and default statements labels, whose scope is the enclosing switch statement ; goto case or goto default is often used as an explicit replacement for implicit fallthrough, which C# disallows. The PL/I programing language has
603-563: A language is formed by a sequence of one or more statements. A statement may have internal components (e.g. expressions ). Many programming languages (e.g. Ada , Algol 60 , C , Java , Pascal ) make a distinction between statements and definitions/declarations . A definition or declaration specifies the data on which a program is to operate, while a statement specifies the actions to be taken with that data. Statements which cannot contain other statements are simple ; those which can contain other statements are compound . The appearance of
670-563: A language where procedure calls are ubiquitous, this form of optimization considerably reduces the cost of a procedure call compared to the GOTO used in other languages. Steele argued that poorly implemented procedure calls had led to an artificial perception that the GOTO was cheap compared to the procedure call. Steele further argued that "in general procedure calls may be usefully thought of as GOTO statements which also pass parameters, and can be uniformly coded as machine code JUMP instructions", with
737-425: A larger statement. In most programming languages, a statement can consist of little more than an expression, usually by following the expression with a statement terminator (semicolon). In such a case, while the expression evaluates to a value, the complete statement does not (the expression's value is discarded). For instance, in C, C++, C#, and many similar languages, x = y + 1 is an expression that will set x to
SECTION 10
#1732854984410804-704: A more radical relaxation of structured programming, allowing not only multiple exit points (as in returns in non-tail position), but also multiple entry points, similar to goto statements. Coroutines are more restricted than goto, as they can only resume a currently running coroutine at specified points – continuing after a yield – rather than jumping to an arbitrary point in the code. A limited form of coroutines are generators , which are sufficient for some purposes. Even more limited are closures – subroutines which maintain state (via static variables ), but not execution position. A combination of state variables and structured control, notably an overall switch statement, can allow
871-555: A paper delivered to the ACM conference in Seattle in 1977, Guy L. Steele summarized the debate over the GOTO and structured programming, and observed that procedure calls in the tail position of a procedure can be most optimally treated as a direct transfer of control to the called procedure, typically eliminating unnecessary stack manipulation operations. Since such "tail calls" are very common in Lisp ,
938-449: A selected menu option, for example). PL/I label variables achieve the effect of computed or assigned GOTO s. Up to the 1985 ANSI COBOL standard had the ALTER statement which could be used to change the destination of an existing GO TO, which had to be in a paragraph by itself. The feature, which allowed polymorphism , was frequently condemned and seldom used. In Perl , there is
1005-424: A stack adjustment. Many languages support the goto statement, and many do not (see § language support ). The structured program theorem proved that the goto statement is not necessary to write programs that can be expressed as flow charts ; some combination of the three programming constructs of sequence, selection/choice, and repetition/iteration are sufficient for any computation that can be performed by
1072-812: A statement (and indeed a program) is determined by its syntax or grammar. The meaning of a statement is determined by its semantics . Simple statements are complete in themselves; these include assignments, subroutine calls, and a few statements which may significantly affect the program flow of control (e.g. goto , return , stop/halt). In some languages, input and output, assertions, and exits are handled by special statements, while other languages use calls to predefined subroutines. Compound statements may contain (sequences of) statements, nestable to any reasonable depth, and generally involve tests to decide whether or not to obey or repeat these contained statements. Many compound statements are loop commands or choice commands. In theory only one of each of these types of commands
1139-555: A statement label (line number) which is stored in (assigned to) an integer variable. Jumping to an integer variable that had not been ASSIGNed to was unfortunately possible, and was a major source of bugs involving assigned gotos. The Fortran assign statement only allows a constant (existing) line number to be assigned to the integer variable. However, some compilers allowed accidentally treating this variable as an integer thereafter, for example increment it, resulting in unspecified behavior at goto time. The following code demonstrates
1206-422: A structured unit prematurely, and a combinatorial explosion with quite complex program state data to handle all possible conditions. Two solutions have been generally adopted: a way to exit a structured unit prematurely, and more generally exceptions – in both cases these go up the structure, returning control to enclosing blocks or functions, but do not jump to arbitrary code locations. These are analogous to
1273-453: A subroutine to resume execution at an arbitrary point on subsequent calls, and is a structured alternative to goto statements in the absence of coroutines; this is a common idiom in C, for example. A continuation is similar to a GOTO in that it transfers control from an arbitrary point in the program to a previously marked point. A continuation is more flexible than GOTO in those languages that support it, because it can transfer control out of
1340-438: A switch statement, or to centralize cleanup tasks in a function with several error returns. (...) Blindly avoiding certain constructs or following rules without understanding them can lead to just as many problems as the rules were supposed to avert. Furthermore, many opinions on programming style are just that: opinions. They may be strongly argued and strongly felt, they may be backed up by solid-seeming evidence and arguments, but
1407-449: A useful language feature, improving program speed, size and code clarity, but only when used in a sensible way by a comparably sensible programmer. According to computer science professor John Regehr , in 2013, there were about 100,000 instances of goto in the Linux kernel code. Other academics took a more extreme viewpoint and argued that even instructions like break and return from
SECTION 20
#17328549844101474-430: A variant of the goto statement that is not a traditional GOTO statement at all. It takes a function name and transfers control by effectively substituting one function call for another (a tail call ): the new function will not return to the GOTO, but instead to the place from which the original function was called. There are several programming languages that do not support GOTO by default. By using GOTO emulation, it
1541-558: A year later. The publication following the meeting still used the name IAL. By the end of 1958 the ZMMD-group had built a working ALGOL 58 compiler for the Z22 computer. ZMMD was an abbreviation for Zürich (where Rutishauser worked), München (workplace of Bauer and Samelson), Mainz (location of the Z22 computer), Darmstadt (workplace of Bottenbruch). ALGOL 58 saw some implementation effort at IBM , but
1608-465: Is goto (20,30,40) i . The equivalent construct in C is the switch statement , and in newer Fortran a SELECT CASE construct is the recommended syntactical alternative. BASIC had a 'On GoTo' statement that achieved the same goal, but in Visual Basic this construct is no longer supported. In versions prior to Fortran 95, Fortran also had an assigned goto variant that transfers control to
1675-585: Is "infinitely abusable", but also suggest that it could be used for end-of-function error handlers and for multi-level breaks from loops. These two patterns can be found in numerous subsequent books on C by other authors; a 2007 introductory textbook notes that the error handling pattern is a way to work around the "lack of built-in exception handling within the C language". Other programmers, including Linux kernel designer and coder Linus Torvalds or software engineer and book author Steve McConnell , also object to Dijkstra's point of view, stating that GOTOs can be
1742-405: Is a statement found in many computer programming languages . It performs a one-way transfer of control to another line of code; in contrast a function call normally returns control. The jumped-to locations are usually identified using labels , though some languages use line numbers . At the machine code level, a goto is a form of branch or jump statement , in some cases combined with
1809-457: Is a 1968 letter by Edsger Dijkstra called " Go-to statement considered harmful ". In that letter, Dijkstra argued that unrestricted GOTO statements should be abolished from higher-level languages because they complicated the task of analyzing and verifying the correctness of programs (particularly those involving loops). The letter itself sparked a debate, including a " 'GOTO Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful" letter sent to Communications of
1876-449: Is generally accepted as the way to go. Some approaches effectively define an interpreter for the language, some use formal logic to reason about a program, some attach affixes to syntactic entities to ensure consistency, etc. A distinction is often made between statements, which are executed, and expressions , which are evaluated. Expressions always evaluate to a value, which statements do not. However, expressions are often used as part of
1943-446: Is less relevant or completely absent. One of the main alternatives is message passing , which is of particular importance in concurrent computing , interprocess communication , and object oriented programming . In these cases, the individual components do not have arbitrary transfer of control, but the overall control may be scheduled in complex ways, such as via preemption . The influential languages Simula and Smalltalk were among
2010-437: Is mandatory. Although Steele's paper did not introduce much that was new to computer science, at least as it was practised at MIT, it brought to light the scope for procedure call optimization, which made the modularity-promoting qualities of procedures into a more credible alternative to the then-common coding habits of large monolithic procedures with complex internal control structures and extensive state data. In particular,
2077-482: Is possible to express the same logic without gotos, the equivalent code will be longer and often more difficult to understand). In other languages, there are structured alternatives, notably exceptions and tail calls. Situations in which goto is often useful include: These uses are relatively common in C, but much less common in C++ or other languages with higher-level features. However, throwing and catching an exception inside
ALGOL 58 - Misplaced Pages Continue
2144-451: Is referred to as a computed goto in documentation of the C compilers that support it; its semantics are a superset of Fortran's assigned goto, because it allows arbitrary pointer expressions as the goto target, while Fortran's assigned goto doesn't allow arbitrary expressions as jump target. As with the standard goto in C, the GNU C extension allows the target of the computed goto to reside only in
2211-437: Is required. In practice there are various special cases which occur quite often; these may make a program easier to understand, may make programming easier, and can often be implemented much more efficiently. There are many subtleties not mentioned here; see the linked articles for details. Apart from assignments and subroutine calls, most languages start each statement with a special word (e.g. goto, if, while, etc.) as shown in
2278-462: Is still possible to use GOTO in these programming languages, albeit with some restrictions. One can emulate GOTO in Java, JavaScript, and Python. PL/I has the data type LABEL , which can be used to implement both the "assigned goto" and the "computed goto." PL/I allows branches out of the current block. A calling procedure can pass a label as an argument to a called procedure which can then exit with
2345-637: The goto statement, and many do not. In Java , goto is a reserved word , but is unusable, although compiled .class files generate GOTOs and LABELs. Python does not have support for goto, although there are several joke modules that provide it. There is no goto statement in Seed7 and hidden gotos like break- and continue-statements are also omitted. In PHP there was no native support for goto until version 5.3 (libraries were available to emulate its functionality). C# and Visual Basic .NET both support goto . However, it does not allow jumping to
2412-617: The ACM (CACM) in March 1987, as well as further replies by other people, including Dijkstra's On a Somewhat Disappointing Correspondence . An alternative viewpoint is presented in Donald Knuth 's Structured Programming with go to Statements , which analyzes many common programming tasks and finds that in some of them GOTO is the optimal language construct to use. In The C Programming Language , Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie warn that goto
2479-401: The "computed goto" in which the instruction to jump to is determined dynamically (conditionally). Under certain conditions it is possible to eliminate local goto statements of legacy programs by replacing them with multilevel loop exit statements. In practice, a strict adherence to the basic three-structure template of structured programming yields highly nested code, due to inability to exit
2546-443: The GOTO statement – see language support – though most provide some means of breaking out of a selection, or either breaking out of or moving on to the next step of an iteration. The viewpoint that disturbing the control flow in code is undesirable may be seen in the design of some programming languages, for instance Ada visually emphasizes label definitions using angle brackets . Entry 17.10 in comp.lang.c FAQ list addresses
2613-629: The ability to structure programs using well-nested executions of routines drawn from a library. This would not have been possible using only goto , since the target code, being drawn from the library, would not know where to jump back to. Later, high-level languages such as Pascal were designed around support for structured programming , which generalized from subroutines (also known as procedures or functions) towards further control structures such as: These new language mechanisms replaced equivalent flows which previously would have been written using goto s and if s. Multi-way branching replaces
2680-756: The above examples. Various methods have been used to describe the form of statements in different languages; the more formal methods tend to be more precise: BNF uses recursion to express repetition, so various extensions have been proposed to allow direct indication of repetition. Some programming language grammars reserve keywords or mark them specially , and do not allow them to be used as identifiers . This often leads to grammars which are easier to parse , requiring less lookahead . Fortran and PL/1 do not have reserved keywords, allowing statements like: In Algol 60 and Algol 68, special tokens were distinguished explicitly: for publication, in boldface e.g. begin ; for programming, with some special marking, e.g.,
2747-437: The assignment statement. Although Python allows multiple assignments as each assignment were an expression, this is simply a special case of the assignment statement built into the language grammar rather than a true expression. Most languages have a fixed set of statements defined by the language, but there have been experiments with extensible languages that allow the programmer to define new statements. Goto Goto
ALGOL 58 - Misplaced Pages Continue
2814-458: The behavior of the goto i when line i is unspecified: Several C compilers implement two non-standard C/C++ extensions relating to gotos originally introduced by gcc . The GNU extension allows the address of a label inside the current function to be obtained as a void* using the unary, prefix label value operator && . The goto instruction is also extended to allow jumping to an arbitrary void* expression. This C extension
2881-408: The construction was more likely to obscure a program than to improve it because its application requires the introduction of additional local variables. It did, however, spark a prominent debate among computer scientists, educators, language designers and application programmers that saw a slow but steady shift away from the formerly ubiquitous use of the GOTO. Probably the most famous criticism of GOTO
2948-532: The current context to a surrounding one. The Common Lisp GO operator also has this stack unwinding property, despite the construct being lexically scoped , as the label to be jumped to can be referenced from a closure . In Scheme , continuations can even move control from an outer context to an inner one if desired. This almost limitless control over what code is executed next makes complex control structures such as coroutines and cooperative multitasking relatively easy to write. In non-procedural paradigms, goto
3015-428: The current function, something that a GOTO cannot do in most structured programming languages. In those language implementations that maintain stack frames for storage of local variables and function arguments, executing a continuation involves adjusting the program's call stack in addition to a jump. The longjmp function of the C programming language is an example of an escape continuation that may be used to escape
3082-464: The current function. Attempting to jump outside the current function results in unspecified behavior. Some variants of BASIC also support a computed GOTO in the sense used in GNU C, i.e. in which the target can be any line number, not just one from a list. For example, in MTS BASIC one could write GOTO i*1000 to jump to the line numbered 1000 times the value of a variable i (which might represent
3149-461: The destination of a goto statement. For example, the C programming language does not permit a jump to a label contained within another function, however jumps within a single call chain are possible using the setjmp/longjmp functions. At the pre-ALGOL meeting held in 1959, Heinz Zemanek explicitly cast doubt on the necessity of GOTO statements; at the time no one paid attention to his remark, including Edsger W. Dijkstra , who later became
3216-453: The effort was in competition with FORTRAN , and soon abandoned. It was also implemented at Dartmouth College on an LGP-30 , but that implementation soon evolved into ALGOL 60 . An implementation for the Burroughs 220 called BALGOL evolved along its own lines as well, but retained much of ALGOL 58's original character. ALGOL 58's primary contribution was to later languages; it was used as
3283-402: The expression x = y + 1 contains the expression y + 1 , which in turn contains the values y and 1 , which are also technically expressions. Although the previous examples show assignment expressions, some languages do not implement assignment as an expression, but rather as a statement. A notable example of this is Python , where = is not an operator, but rather just a separator in
3350-414: The first to introduce the concepts of messages and objects. By encapsulating state data, object-oriented programming reduced software complexity to interactions (messages) between objects. There are a number of different language constructs under the class of goto statements. In Fortran , a computed GOTO jumps to one of several labels in a list, based on the value of an expression. An example
3417-484: The goto statement does not necessarily lead immediately to beautiful programming: an unstructured programmer is just as capable of constructing a Byzantine tangle without using any goto's (perhaps substituting oddly-nested loops and Boolean control variables, instead). Many programmers adopt a moderate stance: goto's are usually to be avoided, but are acceptable in a few well-constrained situations, if necessary: as multi-level break statements, to coalesce common actions inside
SECTION 50
#17328549844103484-564: The iconic opponent of GOTO. The 1970s and 1980s saw a decline in the use of GOTO statements in favor of the structured programming paradigm , with GOTO criticized as leading to unmaintainable spaghetti code . Some programming style coding standards, for example the GNU Pascal Coding Standards, recommend against the use of GOTO statements. The Böhm–Jacopini proof (1966) did not settle the question of whether to adopt structured programming for software development, partly because
3551-408: The issue of GOTO use directly, stating Programming style, like writing style, is somewhat of an art and cannot be codified by inflexible rules, although discussions about style often seem to center exclusively around such rules. In the case of the goto statement, it has long been observed that unfettered use of goto's quickly leads to unmaintainable spaghetti code. However, a simple, unthinking ban on
3618-420: The language: C has about 30 while COBOL has about 400. Semantics is concerned with the meaning of a program. The standards documents for many programming languages use BNF or some equivalent to express the syntax/grammar in a fairly formal and precise way, but the semantics/meaning of the program is generally described using examples and English prose. This can result in ambiguity. In some language descriptions
3685-470: The machine code stack manipulation instructions "considered an optimization (rather than vice versa!)". Steele cited evidence that well optimized numerical algorithms in Lisp could execute faster than code produced by then-available commercial Fortran compilers because the cost of a procedure call in Lisp was much lower. In Scheme , a Lisp dialect developed by Steele with Gerald Jay Sussman , tail call optimization
3752-399: The meaning of compound statements is defined by the use of 'simpler' constructions, e.g. a while loop can be defined by a combination of tests, jumps, and labels , using if and goto . The semantics article describes several mathematical/logical formalisms which have been used to specify semantics in a precise way; these are generally more complicated than BNF, and no single approach
3819-496: The merits of the use of goto statements. The primary criticism is that code that uses goto statements is harder to understand than alternative constructions. Debates over its (more limited) uses continue in academia and software industry circles. goto label The goto statement is often combined with the if statement to cause a conditional transfer of control. IF condition THEN goto label Programming languages impose different restrictions with respect to
3886-668: The middle of loops are bad practice as they are not needed in the Böhm–Jacopini result, and thus advocated that loops should have a single exit point. For instance, Bertrand Meyer wrote in his 2009 textbook that instructions like break and continue "are just the old goto in sheep's clothing". A slightly modified form of the Böhm–Jacopini result, however, allows the avoidance of additional variables in structured programming, as long as multi-level breaks from loops are allowed. Because some languages like C don't allow multi-level breaks via their break keyword, some textbooks advise
3953-426: The opposing opinions may be just as strongly felt, supported, and argued. It's usually futile to get dragged into "style wars", because on certain issues, opponents can never seem to agree, or agree to disagree, or stop arguing. While overall usage of goto has been declining, there are still situations in some languages where a goto provides the shortest and most straightforward way to express a program's logic (while it
4020-549: The programmer to use goto in such circumstances. The MISRA C 2004 standard bans goto , continue , as well as multiple return and break statements. The 2012 edition of the MISRA C standard downgraded the prohibition on goto from "required" to "advisory" status; the 2012 edition has an additional, mandatory rule that prohibits only backward, but not forward jumps with goto . FORTRAN introduced structured programming constructs in 1978, and in successive revisions
4087-540: The relatively loose semantic rules governing the allowable use of goto were tightened; the "extended range" in which a programmer could use a GOTO to leave and re-enter a still-executing DO loop was removed from the language in 1978, and by 1995 several forms of Fortran GOTO, including the Computed GOTO and the Assigned GOTO, had been deleted. Some widely used modern programming languages such as Java and Python lack
SECTION 60
#17328549844104154-449: The relevant code, without otherwise modifying the function. This usage is considered code smell , but finds occasional use. The modern notion of subroutine was invented by David Wheeler when programming the EDSAC . To implement a call and return on a machine without a subroutine call instruction, he used a special pattern of self-modifying code, known as a Wheeler jump . This resulted in
4221-437: The tail call optimizations discussed by Steele turned the procedure into a credible way of implementing iteration through single tail recursion (tail recursion calling the same function). Further, tail call optimization allows mutual recursion of unbounded depth, assuming tail calls – this allows transfer of control, as in finite state machines , which otherwise is generally accomplished with goto statements. Coroutines are
4288-681: The use of a return statement in non-terminal position – not strictly structured, due to early exit, but a mild relaxation of the strictures of structured programming. In C, break and continue allow one to terminate a loop or continue to the next iteration , without requiring an extra while or if statement. In some languages multi-level breaks are also possible. For handling exceptional situations, specialized exception handling constructs were added, such as try / catch / finally in Java. The throw-catch exception handling mechanisms can also be easily abused to create non-transparent control structures, just like goto can be abused. In
4355-471: The value of y plus one, and the whole expression itself will evaluate to the same value that x is set to. However, x = y + 1; (note the semicolon at the end) is a statement that will still set x to the value of y plus one because the expression within the statement is still evaluated, but the result of the expression is discarded, and the statement itself does not evaluate to any value. Expressions can also be contained within other expressions. For instance,
4422-593: The way that Algol 60's blocks were. Bauer attributes the name to Hermann Bottenbruch , who coined the term algorithmic language (algorithmische Sprache) in 1957, "at least in Germany". There were proposals for a universal language by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and also by the German Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik ("Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics") (GAMM). It
4489-412: Was decided to organize a joint meeting to combine them. The meeting took place from May 27 to June 2, 1958, at ETH Zurich and was attended by the following people: The language was originally proposed to be called IAL ( International Algebraic Language ) but according to Perlis, this was rejected as an "'unspeakable' and pompous acronym". ALGOL was suggested instead, though not officially adopted until
#409590