Click here to Skip to main content
Click here to Skip to main content

Why goto Still Exists in C#

, 25 Jul 2009
Rate this:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
Developers, Software Engineers, and Programmers are logical, rational, reasonable people right? Sure they are…until you disagree with something they believe in. Then they can become the most enflamed, outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth, intolerant, lunatics you've ever had the pleasure of meeting.

Developers, Software Engineers, and Programmers are logical, rational, reasonable people right? Sure they are… until you disagree with something they believe in. Then they can become the most enflamed, outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth, intolerant, lunatics you've ever had the pleasure of meeting.

Take for instance the goto command. It can create emotions as intense as those raised during the ancient 'tabs versus spaces' debates or whether or not curly braces should be aligned in columns. (For the record, developers who use tabs and don't line up curly braces also kick puppies and do not practice good hygiene).

You can program for years and never use a goto. However, there are times when a goto can make the code simpler and that… is a very good thing.

Here's a scenario: You are working on a multi-threaded real-time program. You can't use the debugger because stepping through the code would mess up the timings and interactions between the threads. You also need something to help diagnose problems in the field. A runtime log that can be turned on and off is used. The requirement is that every function will log its entry and exit point. That way if something goes wrong, the log will show what function failed and where it failed.

In one area of the program, you need to perform several steps in sequence. If any step fails, the remaining steps must not execute.

Here's the first attempt:

void DoProcess1()
{
    LOG("DoProcess Started...");
 
    if (Step1() == true)
        if (Step2() == true)
            if (Step3() == true)
                if (Step4() == true)
                    if (Step5() == true)
                        if (Step6() == true)
                            Step7();
 
    LOG("DoProcess Finished");
}

Sure it works but getting code to work is only the first step. Creating clear, maintainable code is the goal. If the code can be simplified, you are not done.

Second attempt, use a flag variable:

// Do Process using a success flag
void DoProcess2()
{
    LOG("DoProcess Started...");
 
    bool Success;
 
    Success = Step1();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step2();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step3();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step4();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step5();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step6();
    if (Success == true)
        Success = Step7();
 
    LOG("DoProcess Finished");
}

That's better, but it can be simplified further:

Third attempt with goto:

 
// DoProcess using goto
void DoProcess3()
{
    LOG("DoProcess Started...");
 
    if (Step1() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step2() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step3() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step4() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step5() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step6() == false)
        goto EXIT;
    if (Step7() == false)
        goto EXIT;
 
EXIT:
    LOG("DoProcess Finished");
}

The creation, assigning and checking of a variable has been eliminated. It also runs faster but the speed improvement is insignificant and not a reason for using a goto.

The example is trivial, however in real life, being able to jump to the end of complicated functions can dramatically reduce the complexity of code.

Before you disagree with the inclusion of the goto in the C# language, remember you are disagreeing with the people who created the language. You are also disagreeing with Steve McConnel the author of "Code Complete". Here's his chapter on gotos.

In my career, I've only used a goto once and I had to present the code to a code-review group of four developers. When I showed the code with and without the goto, they unanimously agreed without any discussion that goto was… the way to go. Pun intended.

I hope someone finds this helpful.

[Update: July 3, 2009]

Here are two more examples of when a goto is helpful. The first is from Charles Petzold’s book “.NET Book Zero” a free PDF book available is at http://www.charlespetzold.com/.

A switch “fall through” is illegal in C# (this causes a compiler error):

switch (a) 
{ 
    case 3: 
        b = 7; 
    case 4: 
        c = 3; 
        break; 
    default: 
        b = 2; 
        c = 4; 
        break; 
} 

To get it to work, you can use a goto:

switch (a) 
{ 
    case 3: 
        b = 7; 
        goto case 4; 
    case 4: 
        c = 3; 
        break; 
    default: 
        b = 2; 
        c = 4; 
        break; 
} 

This example shows better how to cleanly get out of nested loops/code. The task is to search a three dimensional array and check for a null value:

    bool GetData()
    {
        String[, ,] Data = new String[5, 5, 5];

        // ....code to fill in array here    
        for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++)
        {
            for (int y = 0; y < 5; y++)
            {
                for (int z = 0; z < 5; z++)
                {
                    if (Data[x, y, z] == null)
                        goto NULL_FOUND;
                }
            }
        }
        return true;

    NULL_FOUND:
        Response.Write("Invalid Data");
        return false;
    }

Steve Wellens

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

About the Author

Steve Wellens
EndWell Software, Inc.
United States United States
I am an independent contractor/consultant working in the Twin Cities area in Minnesota. I work in .Net, Asp.Net, C#, C++, XML, SQL, Windows Forms, HTML, CSS, etc., etc., etc.

Comments and Discussions

 
GeneralMy vote of 1 PinmemberDanny Chu28-Feb-14 2:06 
GeneralRe: My vote of 1 PinmemberSteve Wellens28-Feb-14 16:00 
GeneralComplex nested loops... Pinmemberbarbrady12341-Nov-13 9:13 
GeneralRe: Complex nested loops... PinmemberSteve Wellens1-Nov-13 14:44 
GeneralMy vote of 2 PinmemberJouketje5-Jun-09 1:30 
General[My vote of 1] Oh well.. PinmemberJouketje5-Jun-09 1:29 
GeneralRe: [My vote of 1] Oh well.. PinmemberSteve Wellens5-Jun-09 1:39 
GeneralMy vote of 1 PinmemberJon Artus3-Jun-09 3:01 
GeneralWhy PinmemberMember 38638312-Jun-09 5:01 
GeneralMy vote of 2 PinmemberHarshdeep Mehta (4700787)2-Jun-09 4:15 
GeneralMy vote of 1 Pinmemberp_a_k1-Jun-09 23:43 
GeneralRe: My vote of 1 Pinmemberderoage2-Jun-09 3:14 
GeneralMy vote of 1 PinmemberNikoTanghe1-Jun-09 22:54 
GeneralMy vote of 1 Pinmemberarepetti771-Jun-09 22:27 
GeneralRe: My vote of 1 PinmemberSteve Wellens2-Jun-09 3:07 
GeneralAnother way to re-factor this. PinmemberKinStephen1-Jun-09 19:48 
Generaltry ... finally Pinmembergmt521-Jun-09 19:44 
GeneralRe: try ... finally PinmemberSteve Wellens2-Jun-09 4:54 
GeneralRe: try ... finally Pinmembermerlin9812-Jun-09 4:56 
Generaltry this PinmemberT.D.Brown1-Jun-09 17:41 
GeneralRe: try this PinmemberKinStephen1-Jun-09 19:50 
GeneralRe: try this PinmemberSteve Wellens2-Jun-09 2:58 
GeneralI don't believe GOTOs are needed PinmemberThe_Mega_ZZTer1-Jun-09 17:26 
GeneralI don't think that's the reason for goto to still exists Pinmembertvbusy1-Jun-09 16:08 
GeneralRe: I don't think that's the reason for goto to still exists PinmemberSteve Wellens1-Jun-09 16:16 
GeneralRe: I don't think that's the reason for goto to still exists Pinmembertvbusy1-Jun-09 21:06 
GeneralRe: I don't think that's the reason for goto to still exists PinmemberSteve Wellens2-Jun-09 2:56 
GeneralSuccess = Step1() && Step2() && Step3() && Step4() && Step5() && Step6() && Step7(); PinmemberHightechRider1-Jun-09 14:45 
GeneralRe: Success = Step1() && Step2() && Step3() && Step4() && Step5() && Step6() && Step7(); [modified] PinmemberSteve Wellens1-Jun-09 16:18 
GeneralRe: Success = Step1() && Step2() && Step3() && Step4() && Step5() && Step6() && Step7(); [modified] PinmemberThe_Mega_ZZTer1-Jun-09 17:17 
GeneralRe: Success = Step1() && Step2() && Step3() && Step4() && Step5() && Step6() && Step7(); [modified] PinmemberSharpmao1-Jun-09 20:04 
GeneralRe: Success = Step1() && Step2() && Step3() && Step4() && Step5() && Step6() && Step7(); [modified] PinmemberSteve Wellens2-Jun-09 3:03 

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.

| Advertise | Privacy | Mobile
Web03 | 2.8.140721.1 | Last Updated 25 Jul 2009
Article Copyright 2009 by Steve Wellens
Everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2014
Terms of Service
Layout: fixed | fluid