C++ - Is Goto a Good Practice?

If you posted the code you've implemented it'll be easier for people to give practical advice and coding tips, other than: "GOTO IZ EVIL!!!!111!!!!111!"

Oh, yeah, sorry!
I only used goto in one small section, since I don't have much need for it elsewhere.

[source lang="cpp"]void Combat::combatChoice(Character& C) {
if (C.health < 0 || C.health == 0) {
cout << "----------------- You died... ------------------" << endl;
cout << "Oh dear, it seems you have died... Game Over." << endl;
} else {
battlemenu:
cout << "----------------- Battle Options ------------------" << endl;
C.Display();
cout << "What do you want to do? \n"
<< "Type the number of the action and press enter. \n"
<< "[1] Melee Attack \n"
<< "[2] Gun Attack \n"
<< "[3] Health Potion" << endl;

short choice;
cin >> choice;
switch (choice) {
case 1:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
C.meleeAttack(M);
break;

case 2:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
if(C.ammo == 0) {
cout << "You're out of ammo! \n" << endl;
goto battlemenu;
} else {
C.gunAttack(M);
}
break;

case 3:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
if(C.potions == 0) {
cout << "You're out of potions! \n" << endl;
goto battlemenu;
} else {
C.useHP(C);
}
break;
}
}
}[/source]

You could implement your battlemenu separately and make a call to it when you need it instead of using goto.

The thing about goto is that you basically get rid of every pre/post condition that a block of code should have. When you have an if else block that, besides having the two normal possible outcomes (if branch or else branch), jumps to another place with a goto in the middle, then nothing is safe anymore.

You stomp over every "safety" that basic control structures should give to you when using goto to reach some place in the code.

Its like having a carefully designed brake system in a car, only to go and smash it against a wall because you think you can stop the car faster by doing so.

Goto can also make spaghetti code. A lot of times what ends up happening is that your code is jumping from place to place, making it extremely hard for other people to understand what you're doing. It also makes it hard for you. (Example: Code an awesome enemy system. A month later you need to extend it. Go to look at it and it keeps on jumping to a bunch of places, and you don't understand it, so you scrap all your code.). Now, GoTo isn't always evil. There's an application for everything. However generally using Goto is frowned upon, and the problem you're solving with it can be solved by using object oriented programming.

Is goto a good practice?[/quote]
Is synonymous with

Is jumping into a volcano a good idea?[/quote]

You could implement your battlemenu separately and make a call to it when you need it instead of using goto. The thing about goto is that you basically get rid of every pre/post condition that a block of code should have. When you have an if else block that, besides having the two normal possible outcomes (if branch or else branch), jumps to another place with a goto in the middle, then nothing is safe anymore. You stomp over every "safety" that basic control structures should give to you when using goto to reach some place in the code. Its like having a carefully designed brake system in a car, only to go and smash it against a wall because you think you can stop the car faster by doing so.

Goto can also make spaghetti code. A lot of times what ends up happening is that your code is jumping from place to place, making it extremely hard for other people to understand what you're doing. It also makes it hard for you. (Example: Code an awesome enemy system. A month later you need to extend it. Go to look at it and it keeps on jumping to a bunch of places, and you don't understand it, so you scrap all your code.). Now, GoTo isn't always evil. There's an application for everything. However generally using Goto is frowned upon, and the problem you're solving with it can be solved by using object oriented programming.

I see. So basically, goto is really only a last-ditch alternative for when you don't need to go back and extend it all that much. The better thing to do would be to create a separate class specifically for the battle menu? Crap, another class I have to make...

Anyhow, thanks! I'll see how I can change it to a class, though I'm still not entirely sure how to split all the options into a class, so maybe I could get a couple pointers here?

The posted code is precisely the sort of code Edsger Dijkstra was referring to in his famous letter to CACM titled "GOTO Considered Harmful." It's what we used to refer to as "spaghetti code." In this example it's on a small scale, but spaghetti code nevertheless. The stuff as dreams (bad ones) are made on.

When I started programming, that's pretty much the way all code was written. The available languages gave you little choice.

I'm not averse to using goto in code, especially if you're stuck with a primitive language like assembler, FORTRAN IV, or C (I've used goto in all of those). Even in C, the use of goto should really be limited to forward jumps for error paths (to effectively unwind the stack) and not as a general looping control construct as seen here.

Modern languages such as C++ have no need for goto at all. If you structure your logic correctly your code will be far far easier to read, maintain, extend, and explain all without a hint of pasta.

Goto was really meant for use when inlining assembly or linking in outside binaries. I use goto all the time when using assembly, it simplifies loops when otherwise a conditional jump might not be necessary for infinite loops. When doing c++ in a purely OOP world, you should never use goto.

You don't need an object to get rid of your goto. Take a step back and look at what you're trying to accomplish. You basically want to loop when some condition is met, this is exactly what while/do while/ for loops are meant to do. You can make a function out of the battlemenu section, return true when you have to execute it again or false otherwise. Then you simply call while( battlemenu() ) {}.

Stay away from the evil goto statement in C++. it may seem nice until your project gets larger at which point they'll help to create 'spaghetti code'. C++ is made so that you don't have to use them. The only time you should need to use goto statements in in Assembly.

goto still has its place in C (take a look at the Linux kernel for lots of examples of non-destructive goto use), but for me there has never been any sensible reason to use it in C++.

IMHO the goto statement should not be used, but there are some few exceptional cases, for example if you are inside a nested-nested-nested loop than you might use it. There are other ways though ( better in my opinion ) .

I link you this http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html that was written by dijkstra about the use of GOTO statement. It's a good read!

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not really related to your question, but I think you may be interested to recieve other feedbacks on your code.[/font]

[source lang="cpp"]C.health < 0 || C.health == 0[/source]
The code above is equivalent to
[source lang="java"]C.health <= 0[/source]
What's M in your code? You have used it, but it is not declared in the function. If it is some kind of global or member function I think you should probably use a more descriptive name.

Also, please put brackets around logical conditions!
[source lang="cpp"]((a < 0) || (b == 0))[/source]
Yes, I know, operator precedence generally plays in your favor, but it just feels so much more readable to me (provided you don't end up with five or six nested parentheses, but in that case you probably should simplify the condition anyway). It's more a matter of personal taste, thus subjective, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I only used goto in one small section, since I don't have much need for it elsewhere.
[/quote]
You are essentially abusing goto to create a loop. Instead, use an explicit loop:

void Combat::combatChoice(Character& C) {
if (C.health < 0 || C.health == 0) {
cout << "----------------- You died... ------------------" << endl;
cout << "Oh dear, it seems you have died... Game Over." << endl;
return;
}

bool action = false;
while(!action) {
cout << "----------------- Battle Options ------------------" << endl;
C.Display();
cout << "What do you want to do? \n"
<< "Type the number of the action and press enter. \n"
<< "[1] Melee Attack \n"
<< "[2] Gun Attack \n"
<< "[3] Health Potion" << endl;

short choice;
cin >> choice;
switch (choice) {
case 1:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
C.meleeAttack(M);
action = true;
break;

case 2:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
if(C.ammo == 0) {
cout << "You're out of ammo! \n" << endl;
} else {
C.gunAttack(M);
action = true;
}
break;

case 3:
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
if(C.potions == 0) {
cout << "You're out of potions! \n" << endl;
} else {
C.useHP();
action = true;
}
break;
}
}
}

Note that this automatically handles the case where the user types an invalid option by looping around, though it is generally nicer to print a specific message in this case.

Another potential improvement is to dynamically remove invalid options from the menu. Something like this:

#include <string>
#include <vector>
struct CombatAction {
typedef void (*ActionFunctionPtr)(Character &character, Monster &monster);
string name;
ActionFunctionPtr action;

CombatAction(const string &name, ActionFunctionPtr action)
:
name(name),
action(action)
{
}
};
void punch(Character &character, Monster &monster) {
character.meleeAttack(monster);
}
void shoot(Character &character, Monster &monster) {
character.gunAttack(monster);
}
void heal(Character &character, Monster & /* unusued */) {
character.useHP();
}
void Combat::combatChoice(Character& C) {
if (C.health < 0 || C.health == 0) {
cout << "----------------- You died... ------------------" << endl;
cout << "Oh dear, it seems you have died... Game Over." << endl;
return;
}

vector<CombatAction> actions;
actions.push_back(CombatAction("Melee Attack", &punch));
if(c.ammo > 0) {
actions.push_back(CombatAction("Gun Attack", &shoot));
}
if(c.potions > 0) {
actions.push_back(CombatAction("Health Potion", &heal);
}

bool action = false;
while(!action) {
cout << "----------------- Battle Options ------------------" << endl;
C.Display();
cout << "What do you want to do? \n";
cout << "Type the number of the action and press enter. \n";
for(size_t i = 0 ; i < actions.size() ; ++i) {
cout << "[" << (i + 1) << "] " << actions.name << '\n';
}

size_t choice;
cin >> choice;
if(choice > 0 && choice <= actions.size()) {
cout << "\n----------------- Battle Results ------------------" << endl;
actions[choice - 1].action(C, M);
action = true;
} else {
cout << "Invalid option!" << endl;
}
}
}

I'm not sure if you are familiar with std::vector or function pointers. Feel free to ask a question if you don't understand what this code is doing.

Note: I haven't compiled or tested any of the code in this post, so caveat emptor.

My Teacher always told me that GOTO is forbidden.

If you are posting in beginners forum then you shouldn't use goto in your code
Once you reach advanced level... well, then you know yourself.

If you are posting in beginners forum then you shouldn't use goto in your code
Once you reach advanced level... well, then you know yourself.

...then you'll rather use comefrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comefrom)

When writing C, I use goto quite a lot for error handling and cleanup before returning an error code (rather than writing repetitive code after each failure check).

For those who are convinced that goto is bad in every single situation, have a look at the OpenBSD source code (which is renowned for good code quality) and you will see that goto is used very often.

For C++ however, I find that with RAII (and smart pointers), if you just throw an exception (or even return an error code) then all memory is cleaned up anyway.