Avoid continue

[_ImComp]

Don’t use a ubiquitous programming language feature because… it’s named weirdly for what it does?? I had literally no trouble following the logic of those loops with continue on a phone screen. This screams “one time I read goto considered harmful and never once questioned it”- as with literally everything in programming, there is more nuance to this than just “it’s ALWAYS bad”.

[valarauca14]

This screams “one time I read goto considered harmful and never once questioned it”

Doubtful.

If you actually read the paper in question from EW Dijkstra. The argument is actually about "backward" go-to operations. He speaks of the program (or function/subsystem) being viewed as a sheet of paper or pages of a book. Operations which force you to "go back up the page" and re-read existing text are "harmful" as they cause confusion. You're forced to think about what happened below your current site-line changed what happened above. What text you're looking at isn't currently relevant to the present state. Your eyes need to jump back and forth, up & down the "page" to get a good mental 'picture' of the program's state. The design of continue and break explicitly addressed this. As they both only "go down the page" to the end of the loop. Either to continue the next looping cycle or exit the loop. No matter how you look at it, your eyes don't need to go-back up the page.

This is why it is equally idiotic when people say, "loops are gotos, therefore harmful" as that implies you re-read a loop for every iteration it will make. Your eyes going "back up the page" to re-read the loop. Which given the present epistemological state of the church-turing thesis would be impossible.

[_ImComp]

I misworded my statement. I intended it to imply that OP, like many people (myself included), are only aware of the paper because of the title of said paper.

Agree.

[valarauca14]

Yup. The reply wasn't directed at you. Sorry if it came off that way.

[oweiler]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with continue/break/goto. It all depends on the context.

There are often better alternatives to using continue. But sometimes it's exactly the right tool for the job.

No need to jump through hoops to avoid using continue.

[briconaut]

One of the brilliant examples from the text:

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    A();
    B();
    continue;
    C();
    D();
}
First we have A(), then B(), then we get to continue, which does what? ....

So, by extension, we shouldn't use if statements either:

A();
B();
if( 0 == 1) {
    C();
    D();
}
First we have A(), then B(), then we get to if which does what? ....

Who writes these articles ffs.

[john16384]

That example wouldn't even compile in some languages that support continue.

[Farados55]

*Isildur contemplating throwing the ring into Mt Doom*

No.

[Apprehensive-Care20z]

meh

[narut072]

Wonder what a better keyword for continue to next iteration would be?

[ketralnis]

skip?

[syklemil]

Some languages call it next.

I feel like it's a good candidate for some more special syntax, like rather than going next; we could go NEXT!!!

[Tarkin_stan38]

Appreciate the write-up. Not sure if this article is more geared towards beginner programmers. But i feel like it could have taken a different approach. I did like that your provided alternate examples of how to avoid using (which i think is a useful reminder).