Re: Deep nesting vs early returns

[Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 6 October 2018 at 05:36:59 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
wrote:
On Friday, 5 October 2018 at 19:04:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
On 10/04/2018 11:40 PM, rikki cattermole wrote:
[...]

It's not *my* statement about newer/older. If you recall the 
programming atmosphere around 2000, OO was widely being touted 
as a newer thing, superior to "old-fashioned" imperative, even 
though there's a million things about that whole assessment 
that are false (not the least of which being the at-the-time 
popular notion that Java-style OO somehow wasn't still 
imperative, or, as you pointed out, that OO was a new 
invention).

There's one minor aspect of it that was true though: 
Widespread popularity of OO was certainly a new thing, even if 
OO itself wasn't.

The hype was hight also in the 90...

I remember having used (in production!) a 3rd party  extension 
to Clipper (I don't remember if Summer 87, or 5.0.x) that added 
OO to the language!

In the 90s I used to add the C preprocessor to other languages 
which lacked efficient constant definition (i.e. compile time 
constructs). AutoLISP, the LISP dialect used to write application 
in AutoCAD. There were nearly a 100 of small programs in 
different files and throughout the whole project there were a lot 
repetitions that could not be factorized with AutoCAD means. 
Include, define and ifdef allowed to do things, that were very 
difficult to do at that time (it was on AutoCAD v9.0 which had 
only 64K memory for the LISP code).
I also added the C preprocessor to the DBASE III and the 
compatible MS-DOS based Foxbase.