How did Djikstra this crazy ass nigga program without a computer, I dont get it. Math and pseudocode?

How did Djikstra this crazy ass nigga program without a computer, I dont get it. Math and pseudocode?

Attached: edsger-dijkstra[1].jpg (150x150, 11.26K)

He didn't. That's why he could be so adamant in what turned out to be the most disconnected opinion piece from reality ever written about goto.

is go to any good? I never used it in my programming career

>dyke stra
yikes

Filtered?

>I never used it in my programming career
which is probably why your code looks like if statement soups and needlessly-recursive functions.

/thread
The guy was a faggot, up there with Turing for ego, down there with Bill Gates for actually creating anything worthwhile.

> He doesn't know about the algorithm
You are literally using THE ALGORITHM to deliver your retarded opinion to this site every day.

It's good for implementing state machines. You don't want to have a huge switch block that goes through all the possible states every time when you can just go directly where you need to be in the code.

Of course the same effect can be had with tail calls that get optimized to gotos by the compiler.

>implementing state machines
f :: State -> Input
f A '0' = B
f B '1' = A
f _ _ = Eps

wow, such hard, much goto
Dijkstra was right and this issue was solved by language design. Goto is occasionally useful in inferior languages.

isn't Dikestra's algorithm a pathfinding/routing algorithm? what does this have to do with FSMs? enlighten me CSfags

That was exactly my point, dumbass. Read the post again.

The important thing is what the machine code does, whether you use old-fashioned gotos or some safer, more modern construct in the source code to achieve it is irrelevant to the question asked by .

uberkek

You haven't read his article.

>The important thing is what the machine code does
No it isn't.

You don't use the real GOTO statement yourself because no existing language supports it.

I used go to for the first time a while ago. But additional function could have replaced..
Had few branches to prepare data depending on what it looked like, then at end some ordering or shit. Function would need to pass parameters. Goto didn't.

Nothing wrong with the restricted form of goto present in C: it is limited to jumping within the same function, which does not violate the structured programming paradigm. In fact, for cleaning up resources, a goto is pretty much the cleanest way you have in C.

Are you not choosing a route of multiple possible decisions based on some input and maybe a hunch? That’s essentially Dijkstra’s.

Dijkstra was a guy and "Dijkstra's algorithm" is far from his most interesting or important contribution.
One thing he's known for is crusading against goto. Goto is not terribly useful in a sufficiently expressive language, but it can be nice for state machines.

Do most routing protocols use his algorithm? I thought only OSPF which is an IGP does?