I would very much prefer something written down, so I could absorb this at my own pace. I know, gift horse, but still.
It's also a little fluffy. It's basically the history of how the book Structured Programming came about, because it's that book that essentially caused Knuth to write an article that contained the quote.
A lot of it is fairly interesting but it also highlights a big problem I do have with Muratori. He generalizes from self. He didn't fully understand or appreciate the quote about premature optimization, so no one did. And even though he's been told what it actually means, and was probably pointed to the full quote, he would stick on his interpretation. It's likely someone he views as "higher", like Jon Blow, challenged him and then he took the time to actually look at it.
He ain't wrong though.... most people definitely don't get the jive for sure. Knuth was talking about a massively different kind of optimisation than what we do today yet people keep continuing to parrot the 97% figure uncritically like as it was some gospel. [0]
I used to do manual labor and I would work my way through like eight hours of audiobooks per day.
I would like to learn to focus... (https://youtu.be/1IRn8BN3Qhw?t=331)
I used read a lot of books when I was younger, then slowly stopped, and found getting back to reading quite hard as well. Armed with the knowledge that I used to be able to do this, I just forced myself to. And after a while, I found I had no trouble committing any more.
The basic idea is that the origin assumes a highly critical inner hot loop, don't assume where it is, and optimize there.
There's some other time spent saying this justifies slower abstractions for maintainability elsewhere.
I think the GOTOers just died out.
Some day null, statements (rather than expressions) and side-effects will have always been wrong.
The actual GO TO complained of is, like the jump instruction in machine code, just entirely unbothered by context. Want to go from the middle of this code about employee payroll processing to mid-way through initializing a weather simulation? No problem. Well. No problem for the machine, for a human programmer it's a complete nightmare. Actually that's putting it mildly, nightmares have more structure. You cannot do anything like that with for example C's goto.
You compiler can, and in a few cases (that's what the discussion about the tail-call optimisation is about for example) it will, but the program you wrote doesn't do this and so you don't have to try to keep the whole program in your head.
So in that sense GOTO died out with, maybe BASICs? I think the BASICs tend to have that wolf nature GOTO feature, but nothing modern has it.
So we can jump over a variable declaration which is pretty confusing, but we can't jump into unrelated code.
Also while COMMAND.COM can't be as old as BASIC it must be pretty old.
However, having written a good chunk of ASM in my life. I don't think jumps or branches are really that hard to follow. Jumps/Branches and GOTOs specify the next location. It is not as though one has to guess where.
It's not the arrow, it's the archer that is the problem.
My guess is that your ASM is inflected by structured programming everywhere. Yes, unlike COME FROM we can see where we're going next with GO TO but if you go back 60+ years there is some scary code that even today's optimizers probably wouldn't emit because it's too crazy. Suppose calculate-total-fuel ends with three CPU instructions which copy register F into register H then add register C to it and multiply the sum by four. Over in locate-horizon it so happens we need to add two things together and multiply them by four and we could do that last. So, if those two things were in registers F and C we could just GO TO that last part of calculate-total-fuel.
You're correct that we don't need to "guess where" it goes, but good luck understanding why the program works when it's like this, let alone the ordinary maintenance work of making small modifications.
I think you're probably right. To expand on this:
In asm, you can have things that are clearly functions. You have a stack discipline going in and out of them. They end with stack cleanup, then a RET or some such, which pops the return address off of the stack and jumps to it. Within that function, you have JMP instructions (or whatever) that move around within the function. You may also call other functions, by pushing variables on the stack, and then calling JSR or whatever to push the program counter on the stack and jump, and when those functions return, you'll be right where you were in this function. That's all sane, and it's "structured assembly".
Non-structured assembly would be like the example in your second paragraph. You're in one function, and you JMP (not JSR) into the interior of a second function. Or, you simply don't have functions, just labels that you jump around do. That's not structured, and not sane.
(I am the GP)
Your response was far better than mine. If those instructions were executed more than a couple of times and the constraints/assertions were identical, I'd absolutely throw them in a function. I'll handle what I need to before/after the function.
I would never branch to some coincidental label. That is why I love ASM so much. If you are sloppy or lazy, you will most likely be punished severely for those choices.
(Tangential, but when I first learned ASM in college, I felt like I learned more in that one semester than all the sum of all classes in my entire degree.)
When you need to do X here and there, you write code to X and then you call it where it was useful - you don't have code in one function just jump to a label in a completely different function because, in this era where structured programming is taken for granted - that seems crazy. And it is, but only the same way that chattel slavery seems crazy today, in the Antebellum South it was just usual and likewise in 1950s computer software just jumping into unrelated code was normal.
> My guess is that your ASM is inflected by structured programming everywhere.
I am not certain what you mean.
> if you go back 60+ years there is some scary code that even today's optimizers probably wouldn't emit because it's too crazy.
Why was this as common as the allegations lead me to believe? Was it just a product of time? No better way to handle such logic at the time?
As for your example, I know it is intended to be interpreted trivially, but I just want to clarify I understand you correctly. Is the issue due to locate-horizon depending on logic from a completely orthogonal operation?
If so, I see the red flag immediately. However, I do not see an issue with creating a separate function. I'd just have to be damn sure H was not storing anything used for some other upcoming operation prior to the function call, I'd check F and C for valid state (if necessary), take other potential side-effects into account, etc.
It feels a lot like the DRY advice being abused in higher-level languages, you know? I agree with expression, "duplication is better than the wrong abstraction."
Same reason that nobody did the Fosbury Flop at the 1948 Olympics - Dick Fosbury hasn't shown this technique yet and it's not obvious if you've never seen it that this is a better way to perform an Olympic regulation high jump. Twenty years later, he does exactly that and wins Gold and by the 1988 Olympics this is how everybody does a high jump, but in 1948 nobody knows it.
Your instinct to "create a separate function" is exactly Structured Programming.
Though lately I've been uploading the audio to AssemblyAI, I somehow still haven't used up my credits after several years lol
At one point I built a system that would summarize the transcript and I'd be able to ask questions about it, but Gemini can do that natively now so I usually just use that.
It is something you can maybe whip up with the help of an LLM but then you're left wondering whether it is actually communicating what the video intended to begin with, as you wouldn't be as knowledgeable about the topic, one wouldn't be able to spot the parts where an LLM interpreted something horribly and thus reaching the wrong conclusions.
For all of the above, I do not consider audio transcript to be of any help when one prefers written content. It is useful for translation or people with hearing issues, but both of those receive help of the visual parts to convey the topic.