I'm writing a program for a Schneider PLC using structured text, and I'm trying to do it using object oriented programming.
Being a newbie in PLC programming, I wrote a simple test program such a this:
okFlag:=myObject.aMethod();
IF okFlag THEN
// it's ok, go on
ELSE
// error handling
END_IF
aMethod must perform some operations, wait for the result (there is a "time-out" check to avoid deadlocks) and return TRUE or FALSE
This is what I expected during program execution
1) when the okFlag:=myObject.aMethod(); is reached, the code inside aMethod is executed until a result is returned. When I say "executed" I mean that in the next scan cycle the execution of aMethodcontinues from the point it had reached before.
2) the result of method calling is checked and the main flow of the program is executed
and this is what happens:
1) aMethod is executed but the program flow continues. That is, when it reaches the end of aMethod a value it's returned, even if the events that aMethod should wait for are still executing.
2) on the next cycle, aMethod is called again and restarts from the beginning
This is the first solution I found:
VAR_STATIC
imBusy: BOOL
END_VAR
METHOD aMethod: INT;
IF NOT(imBusy) THEN
imBusy:=FALSE;
aMethod:=-1; // result of method while in progress
ELSE
aMethod:=-1;
<rest of code. If everything is ok, the result is 0, otherwise is 1>
END_IF
imBusy:=aMethod<0;
and the main program:
CASE (myObject.aMethod()) OF
0: // it's ok, go on
1: // error handling
ELSE
// still executing...
END_CASE
and this seems to work, but I don't know if it's the right approach.
There are some libraries from Schneider which use methods that return boolean and seem to work as I expected in my program. That is: when the cycle reaches the call to method for the first time the program flow is "deviated" somehow so that in the next cycle it enters again the method until it's finished. It's there a way to have this behaviour ?
generally OOP isn't the approach that people would take when using IEC61131 languages. Your best bet is probably to implement your code as a state machine. I've used this approach in the past as a way of simplifying a complex sequence so that it is easier for plant maintainers to interpret.
Typically what I would recommend if you are going to take this approach is to try to segregate your state machine itself from your working code; you can implement a state machine of X steps, and then have your working code reference the statemachine step.
A simple example might look like:
stepNo := 0;
IF (start AND stepNo = 0) THEN
StepNo = 1;
END_IF;
(* there's a shortcut unity operation for resetting this array to zeroes which is faster, but I can't remember it off the top of my head... *)
ActiveStepArray := BlankStepArray;
IF stepNo > 0 THEN
IF StepComplete[stepNo] THEN
stepNo := stepNo +1;
END_IF;
ActiveStepArray[stepNo] := true;
END_IF;
Then in other code sections you can put...
IF ActiveStep[1] THEN
(* Do something *)
StepComplete[1] := true;
END_IF;
IF ActiveStep[2] THEN
(* Do Something *)
StepComplete[2] := true;
END_IF;
(* etc *)
The nice thing about this approach is that you can actually put all of the state machine code (including jumps, resets etc) into a DFB, test it and then shelve it, and then just use the active step, step complete, and any other inputs you require.
Your code is still always going to execute an entire section of logic, but if you really want to avoid that then you'll have to use a lot of IF statements, which will impede readability.
Hope that helps.
Why not use SFC it makes your live easier in many cases, since it is state machine language itself. Do subprogram, wait condition do another .. rince and repeat. :)
Don't hang just for ST, the other IEC languages are better in some other tasks and keep thing as clear as possible. There should be not so much "this is my cake" mentality on the industrial PLC programming circles as it is on the many other programming fields, since application timeline can be 40 years and you left the firm 20 years ago to better job and programs are almost always location/customer or atleast hardware specific.
http://www.automation.com/pdf_articles/IEC_Programming_Thayer_L.pdf
I'm wrestling with the concept of code "order of execution" and so far my research has come up short. I'm not sure if I'm phrasing it incorrectly, it's possible there is a more appropriate term for the concept. I'd appreciate it if someone could shed some light on my various stumbling blocks below.
I understand that if you call one method after another:
[self generateGrid1];
[self generateGrid2];
Both methods are run, but generateGrid1 doesn't necessarily wait for generateGrid2. But what if I need it to? Say generateGrid1 does some complex calculations (that take an unknown amount of time) and populate an array that generateGrid2 uses for it's calculations? This needs to be done every time an event is fired, it's not just a one time initialization.
I need a way to call methods sequentially, but have some methods wait for others. I've looked into call backs, but the concept is always married to delegates in all the examples I've seen.
I'm also not sure when to make the determinate that I can't reasonably expect a line of code to be parsed in time for it to be used. For example:
int myVar = [self complexFloatCalculation];
if (myVar <= 10.0f) {} else {}
How do I determine if something will take long enough to implement checks for "Is this other thing done before I start my thing". Just trial and error?
Or maybe I'm passing a method as parameter of another method? Does it wait for the arguments to be evaluated before executing the method?
[self getNameForValue:[self getIntValue]];
I understand that if you call one method after another:
[self generateGrid1];
[self generateGrid2];
Both methods are run, but generateGrid1 doesn't necessarily wait for generateGrid2. But what if I need it to?
False. generateGrid1 will run, and then generateGrid2 will run. This sequential execution is the very basis of procedural languages.
Technically, the compiler is allowed to rearrange statements, but only if the end result would be provably indistinguishable from the original. For example, look at the following code:
int x = 3;
int y = 4;
x = x + 6;
y = y - 1;
int z = x + y;
printf("z is %d", z);
It really doesn't matter whether the x+6 or the y-1 line happens first; the code as written does not make use of either of the intermediate values other than to calculate z, and that can happen in either order. So if the compiler can for some reason generate more efficient code by rearranging those lines, it is allowed to do so.
You'd never be able to see the effects of such rearranging, though, because as soon as you try to use one of those intermediate values (say, to log it), the compiler will recognize that the value is being used, and get rid of the optimization that would break your logging.
So really, the compiler is not required to execute your code in the order provided; it is only required to generate code that is functionally identical to the code you provided. This means that you actually can see the effects of these kinds of optimizations if you attach a debugger to a program that was compiled with optimizations in place. This leads to all sorts of confusing things, because the source code the debugger is tracking does not necessarily match up line-for-line with the code the compiled code the compiler generated. This is why optimizations are almost always turned off for debug builds of a program.
Anyway, the point is that the compiler can only do these sorts of tricks when it can prove that there will be no effect. Objective-c method calls are dynamically bound, meaning that the compiler has absolutely no guarantee about what will actually happen at runtime when that method is called. Since the compiler can't make any guarantees about what will happen, the compiler will never reorder Objective-C method calls. But again, this just falls back to the same principle I stated earlier: the compiler may change order of execution, but only if it is completely imperceptible to the user.
In other words, don't worry about it. Your code will always run top-to-bottom, each statement waiting for the one before it to complete.
In general, most method calls that you see in the style you described are synchronous, that means they'll have the effect you desire, running in the order the statements were coded, where the second call will only run after the first call finishes and returns.
Also, when a method takes parameters, its parameters are evaluated before the method is called.
I just want to know what the difference between all the conditional statements in objective-c and which one is faster and lighter.
One piece of advice: stop worrying about which language constructs are microscopically faster or slower than which others, and instead focus on which ones let you express yourself best.
If and case statements described
While statement described
Since these statements do different things, it is unproductive to debate which is faster.
It's like asking whether a hammer is faster than a screwdriver.
The language-agnostic version (mostly, obviously this doesn't count for declarative languages or other weird ones):
When I was taught programming (quite a while ago, I'll freely admit), a language consisted of three ways of executing instructions:
sequence (doing things in order).
selection (doing one of many things).
iteration (doing something zero or more times).
The if and case statements are both variants on selection. If is used to select one of two different options based on a condition (using pseudo-code):
if condition:
do option 1
else:
do option 2
keeping in mind that the else may not be needed in which case it's effectively else do nothing. Also remember that option 1 or 2 may also consist of any of the statement types, including more if statements (called nesting).
Case is slightly different - it's generally meant for more than two choices like when you want to do different things based on a character:
select ch:
case 'a','e','i','o','u':
print "is a vowel"
case 'y':
print "never quite sure"
default:
print "is a consonant"
Note that you can use case for two options (or even one) but it's a bit like killing a fly with a thermonuclear warhead.
While is not a selection variant but an iteration one. It belongs with the likes of for, repeat, until and a host of other possibilities.
As to which is fastest, it doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases. The compiler writers know far more than we mortal folk how to get the last bit of performance out of their code. You either trust them to do their job right or you hand-code it in assembly yourself (I'd prefer the former).
You'll get far more performance by concentrating on the macro view rather than the minor things. That includes selection of appropriate algorithms, profiling, and targeting of hot spots. It does little good to find something that take five minutes each month and get that running in two minutes. Better to get a smaller improvement in something happening every minute.
The language constructs like if, while, case and so on will already be as fast as they can be since they're used heavily and are relative simple. You should be first writing your code for readability and only worrying about performance when it becomes an issue (see YAGNI).
Even if you found that using if/goto combinations instead of case allowed you to run a bit faster, the resulting morass of source code would be harder to maintain down the track.
while isn't a conditional it is a loop. The difference being that the body of a while-loop can be executed many times, the body of a conditional will only be executed once or not at all.
The difference between if and switch is that if accepts an arbitrary expression as the condition and switch just takes values to compare against. Basically if you have a construct like if(x==0) {} else if(x==1) {} else if(x==2) ..., it can be written much more concisely (and effectively) by using switch.
A case statement could be written as
if (a)
{
// Do something
}
else if (b)
{
// Do something else
}
But the case is much more efficient, since it only evaluates the conditional once and then branches.
while is only useful if you want a condition to be evaluated, and the associated code block executed, multiple times. If you expect a condition to only occur once, then it's equivalent to if. A more apt comparison is that while is a more generalized for.
Each condition statement serves a different purpose and you won't use the same one in every situation. Learn which ones are appropriate for which situation and then write your code. If you profile your code and find there's a bottleneck, then you go ahead and address it. Don't worry about optimizing before there's actually a problem.
Are you asking whether an if structure will execute faster than a switch statement inside of a large loop? If so, I put together a quick test, this code was put into the viewDidLoad method of a new view based project I just created in the latest Xcode and iPhone SDK:
NSLog(#"Begin loop");
NSDate *loopBegin = [NSDate date];
int ctr0, ctr1, ctr2, ctr3, moddedNumber;
ctr0 = 0;
ctr1 = 0;
ctr2 = 0;
ctr3 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
moddedNumber = i % 4;
// 3.34, 1.23s in simulator
if (moddedNumber == 0)
{
ctr0++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 1)
{
ctr1++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 2)
{
ctr2++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 3)
{
ctr3++;
}
// 4.11, 1.34s on iPod Touch
/*switch (moddedNumber)
{
case 0:
ctr0++;
break;
case 1:
ctr1++;
break;
case 2:
ctr2++;
break;
case 3:
ctr3++;
break;
}*/
}
NSTimeInterval elapsed = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSinceDate:loopBegin];
NSLog(#"End loop: %f seconds", elapsed );
This code sample is by no means complete, because as pointed out earlier if you have a situation that comes up more times than the others, you would of course want to put that one up front to reduce the total number of comparisons. It does show that the if structure would execute a bit faster in a situation where the decisions are more or less equally divided among the branches.
Also, keep in mind that the results of this little test varied widely in performance between running it on a device vs. running it in the emulator. The times cited in the code comments are running on an actual device. (The first time shown is the time to run the loop the first time the code was run, and the second number was the time when running the same code again without rebuilding.)
There are conditional statements and conditional loops. (If Wikipedia is to be trusted, then simply referring to "a conditional" in programming doesn't cover conditional loops. But this is a minor terminology issue.)
Shmoopty said "Since these statements do different things, it is nonsensical to debate which is faster."
Well... it may be time poorly spent, but it's not nonsensical. For instance, let's say you have an if statement:
if (cond) {
code
}
You can transform that into a loop that executes at most one time:
while (cond) {
code
break;
}
The latter will be slower in pretty much any language (or the same speed, because the optimizer turned it back into the original if behind the scenes!) Still, there are occasions in computer programming where (due to bizarre circumstances) the convoluted thing runs faster
But those incidents are few and far between. The focus should be on your code--what makes it clearest, and what captures your intent.
loops and branches are hard to explain briefly, to get the best code out of a construct in any c-style language depends on the processor used and the local context of the code. The main objective is to reduce the breaking of the execution pipeline -- primarily by reducing branch mispredictions.
I suggest you go here for all your optimization needs. The manuals are written for the c-style programmer and relatively easy to understand if you know some assembly. These manuals should explain to you the subtleties in modern processors, the strategies used by top compilers, and the best way to structure code to get the most out of it.
I just remembered the most important thing about conditionals and branching code. Order your code as follows
if(x==1); //80% of the time
else if(x==2); // 10% of the time
else if(x==3); //6% of the time
else break;
You must use an else sequence... and in this case the prediction logic in your CPU will predict correctly for x==1 and avoid the breaking of your pipeline for 80% of all execution.
More information from intel. Particularly:
In order to effectively write your code to take advantage of these rules, when writing if-else or switch statements, check the most common cases first and work progressively down to the least common. Loops do not necessarily require any special ordering of code for static branch prediction, as only the condition of the loop iterator is normally used.
By following this rule you are flat-out giving the CPU hints about how to bias its prediction logic towards your chained conditionals.
I often use this code pattern:
while(true) {
//do something
if(<some condition>) {
break;
}
}
Another programmer told me that this was bad practice and that I should replace it with the more standard:
while(!<some condition>) {
//do something
}
His reasoning was that you could "forget the break" too easily and have an endless loop. I told him that in the second example you could just as easily put in a condition which never returned true and so just as easily have an endless loop, so both are equally valid practices.
Further, I often prefer the former as it makes the code easier to read when you have multiple break points, i.e. multiple conditions which get out of the loop.
Can anyone enrichen this argument by adding evidence for one side or the other?
There is a discrepancy between the two examples. The first will execute the "do something" at least once every time even if the statement is never true. The second will only "do something" when the statement evaluates to true.
I think what you are looking for is a do-while loop. I 100% agree that while (true) is not a good idea because it makes it hard to maintain this code and the way you are escaping the loop is very goto esque which is considered bad practice.
Try:
do {
//do something
} while (!something);
Check your individual language documentation for the exact syntax. But look at this code, it basically does what is in the do, then checks the while portion to see if it should do it again.
To quote that noted developer of days gone by, Wordsworth:
...
In truth the prison, unto which we doom
Ourselves, no prison is; and hence for me,
In sundry moods, 'twas pastime to be bound
Within the Sonnet's scanty plot of ground;
Pleased if some souls (for such their needs must be)
Who have felt the weight of too much liberty,
Should find brief solace there, as I have found.
Wordsworth accepted the strict requirements of the sonnet as a liberating frame, rather than as a straightjacket. I'd suggest that the heart of "structured programming" is about giving up the freedom to build arbitrarily-complex flow graphs in favor of a liberating ease of understanding.
I freely agree that sometimes an early exit is the simplest way to express an action. However, my experience has been that when I force myself to use the simplest possible control structures (and really think about designing within those constraints), I most often find that the result is simpler, clearer code. The drawback with
while (true) {
action0;
if (test0) break;
action1;
}
is that it's easy to let action0 and action1 become larger and larger chunks of code, or to add "just one more" test-break-action sequence, until it becomes difficult to point to a specific line and answer the question, "What conditions do I know hold at this point?" So, without making rules for other programmers, I try to avoid the while (true) {...} idiom in my own code whenever possible.
When you can write your code in the form
while (condition) { ... }
or
while (!condition) { ... }
with no exits (break, continue, or goto) in the body, that form is preferred, because someone can read the code and understand the termination condition just by looking at the header. That's good.
But lots of loops don't fit this model, and the infinite loop with explicit exit(s) in the middle is an honorable model. (Loops with continue are usually harder to understand than loops with break.) If you want some evidence or authority to cite, look no further than Don Knuth's famous paper on Structured Programming with Goto Statements; you will find all the examples, arguments, and explanations you could want.
A minor point of idiom: writing while (true) { ... } brands you as an old Pascal programmer or perhaps these days a Java programmer. If you are writing in C or C++, the preferred idiom is
for (;;) { ... }
There's no good reason for this, but you should write it this way because this is the way C programmers expect to see it.
I prefer
while(!<some condition>) {
//do something
}
but I think it's more a matter of readability, rather than the potential to "forget the break." I think that forgetting the break is a rather weak argument, as that would be a bug and you'd find and fix it right away.
The argument I have against using a break to get out of an endless loop is that you're essentially using the break statement as a goto. I'm not religiously against using goto (if the language supports it, it's fair game), but I do try to replace it if there's a more readable alternative.
In the case of many break points I would replace them with
while( !<some condition> ||
!<some other condition> ||
!<something completely different> ) {
//do something
}
Consolidating all of the stop conditions this way makes it a lot easier to see what's going to end this loop. break statements could be sprinkled around, and that's anything but readable.
while (true) might make sense if you have many statements and you want to stop if any fail
while (true) {
if (!function1() ) return;
if (!function2() ) return;
if (!function3() ) return;
if (!function4() ) return;
}
is better than
while (!fail) {
if (!fail) {
fail = function1()
}
if (!fail) {
fail = function2()
}
........
}
Javier made an interesting comment on my earlier answer (the one quoting Wordsworth):
I think while(true){} is a more 'pure' construct than while(condition){}.
and I couldn't respond adequately in 300 characters (sorry!)
In my teaching and mentoring, I've informally defined "complexity" as "How much of the rest of the code I need to have in my head to be able to understand this single line or expression?" The more stuff I have to bear in mind, the more complex the code is. The more the code tells me explicitly, the less complex.
So, with the goal of reducing complexity, let me reply to Javier in terms of completeness and strength rather than purity.
I think of this code fragment:
while (c1) {
// p1
a1;
// p2
...
// pz
az;
}
as expressing two things simultaneously:
the (entire) body will be repeated as long as c1 remains true, and
at point 1, where a1 is performed, c1 is guaranteed to hold.
The difference is one of perspective; the first of these has to do with the outer, dynamic behavior of the entire loop in general, while the second is useful to understanding the inner, static guarantee which I can count on while thinking about a1 in particular. Of course the net effect of a1 may invalidate c1, requiring that I think harder about what I can count on at point 2, etc.
Let's put a specific (tiny) example in place to think about the condition and first action:
while (index < length(someString)) {
// p1
char c = someString.charAt(index++);
// p2
...
}
The "outer" issue is that the loop is clearly doing something within someString that can only be done as long as index is positioned in the someString. This sets up an expectation that we'll be modifying either index or someString within the body (at a location and manner not known until I examine the body) so that termination eventually occurs. That gives me both context and expectation for thinking about the body.
The "inner" issue is that we're guaranteed that the action following point 1 will be legal, so while reading the code at point 2 I can think about what is being done with a char value I know has been legally obtained. (We can't even evaluate the condition if someString is a null ref, but I'm also assuming we've guarded against that in the context around this example!)
In contrast, a loop of the form:
while (true) {
// p1
a1;
// p2
...
}
lets me down on both issues. At the outer level, I am left wondering whether this means that I really should expect this loop to cycle forever (e.g. the main event dispatch loop of an operating system), or whether there's something else going on. This gives me neither an explicit context for reading the body, nor an expectation of what constitutes progress toward (uncertain) termination.
At the inner level, I have absolutely no explicit guarantee about any circumstances that may hold at point 1. The condition true, which is of course true everywhere, is the weakest possible statement about what we can know at any point in the program. Understanding the preconditions of an action are very valuable information when trying to think about what the action accomplishes!
So, I suggest that the while (true) ... idiom is much more incomplete and weak, and therefore more complex, than while (c1) ... according to the logic I've described above.
The problem is that not every algorithm sticks to the "while(cond){action}" model.
The general loop model is like this :
loop_prepare
loop:
action_A
if(cond) exit_loop
action_B
goto loop
after_loop_code
When there is no action_A you can replace it by :
loop_prepare
while(cond)
action_B
after_loop_code
When there is no action_B you can replace it by :
loop_prepare
do action_A
while(cond)
after_loop_code
In the general case, action_A will be executed n times and action_B will be executed (n-1) times.
A real life example is : print all the elements of a table separated by commas.
We want all the n elements with (n-1) commas.
You always can do some tricks to stick to the while-loop model, but this will always repeat code or check twice the same condition (for every loops) or add a new variable. So you will always be less efficient and less readable than the while-true-break loop model.
Example of (bad) "trick" : add variable and condition
loop_prepare
b=true // one more local variable : more complex code
while(b): // one more condition on every loop : less efficient
action_A
if(cond) b=false // the real condition is here
else action_B
after_loop_code
Example of (bad) "trick" : repeat the code. The repeated code must not be forgotten while modifying one of the two sections.
loop_prepare
action_A
while(cond):
action_B
action_A
after_loop_code
Note : in the last example, the programmer can obfuscate (willingly or not) the code by mixing the "loop_prepare" with the first "action_A", and action_B with the second action_A. So he can have the feeling he is not doing this.
The first is OK if there are many ways to break from the loop, or if the break condition cannot be expressed easily at the top of the loop (for example, the content of the loop needs to run halfway but the other half must not run, on the last iteration).
But if you can avoid it, you should, because programming should be about writing very complex things in the most obvious way possible, while also implementing features correctly and performantly. That's why your friend is, in the general case, correct. Your friend's way of writing loop constructs is much more obvious (assuming the conditions described in the preceding paragraph do not obtain).
There's a substantially identical question already in SO at Is WHILE TRUE…BREAK…END WHILE a good design?. #Glomek answered (in an underrated post):
Sometimes it's very good design. See Structured Programing With Goto Statements by Donald Knuth for some examples. I use this basic idea often for loops that run "n and a half times," especially read/process loops. However, I generally try to have only one break statement. This makes it easier to reason about the state of the program after the loop terminates.
Somewhat later, I responded with the related, and also woefully underrated, comment (in part because I didn't notice Glomek's the first time round, I think):
One fascinating article is Knuth's "Structured Programming with go to Statements" from 1974 (available in his book 'Literate Programming', and probably elsewhere too). It discusses, amongst other things, controlled ways of breaking out of loops, and (not using the term) the loop-and-a-half statement.
Ada also provides looping constructs, including
loopname:
loop
...
exit loopname when ...condition...;
...
end loop loopname;
The original question's code is similar to this in intent.
One difference between the referenced SO item and this is the 'final break'; that is a single-shot loop which uses break to exit the loop early. There have been questions on whether that is a good style too - I don't have the cross-reference at hand.
Sometime you need infinite loop, for example listening on port or waiting for connection.
So while(true)... should not categorized as good or bad, let situation decide what to use
It depends on what you’re trying to do, but in general I prefer putting the conditional in the while.
It’s simpler, since you don't need another test in the code.
It’s easier to read, since you don’t have to go hunting for a break inside the loop.
You’re reinventing the wheel. The whole point of while is to do something as long as a test is true. Why subvert that by putting the break condition somewhere else?
I’d use a while(true) loop if I was writing a daemon or other process that should run until it gets killed.
If there's one (and only one) non-exceptional break condition, putting that condition directly into the control-flow construct (the while) is preferable. Seeing while(true) { ... } makes me as a code-reader think that there's no simple way to enumerate the break conditions and makes me think "look carefully at this and think about carefully about the break conditions (what is set before them in the current loop and what might have been set in the previous loop)"
In short, I'm with your colleague in the simplest case, but while(true){ ... } is not uncommon.
The perfect consultant's answer: it depends. Most cases, the right thing to do is either use a while loop
while (condition is true ) {
// do something
}
or a "repeat until" which is done in a C-like language with
do {
// do something
} while ( condition is true);
If either of these cases works, use them.
Sometimes, like in the inner loop of a server, you really mean that a program should keep going until something external interrupts it. (Consider, eg, an httpd daemon -- it isn't going to stop unless it crashes or it's stopped by a shutdown.)
THEN AND ONLY THEN use a while(1):
while(1) {
accept connection
fork child process
}
Final case is the rare occasion where you want to do some part of the function before terminating. In that case, use:
while(1) { // or for(;;)
// do some stuff
if (condition met) break;
// otherwise do more stuff.
}
I think the benefit of using "while(true)" is probably to let multiple exit condition easier to write especially if these exit condition has to appear in different location within the code block. However, for me, it could be chaotic when I have to dry-run the code to see how the code interacts.
Personally I will try to avoid while(true). The reason is that whenever I look back at the code written previously, I usually find that I need to figure out when it runs/terminates more than what it actually does. Therefore, having to locate the "breaks" first is a bit troublesome for me.
If there is a need for multiple exit condition, I tend to refactor the condition determining logic into a separate function so that the loop block looks clean and easier to understand.
No, that's not bad since you may not always know the exit condition when you setup the loop or may have multiple exit conditions. However it does require more care to prevent an infinite loop.
He is probably correct.
Functionally the two can be identical.
However, for readability and understanding program flow, the while(condition) is better. The break smacks more of a goto of sorts. The while (condition) is very clear on the conditions which continue the loop, etc. That doesn't mean break is wrong, just can be less readable.
A few advantages of using the latter construct that come to my mind:
it's easier to understand what the loop is doing without looking for breaks in the loop's code.
if you don't use other breaks in the loop code, there's only one exit point in your loop and that's the while() condition.
generally ends up being less code, which adds to readability.
I prefer the while(!) approach because it more clearly and immediately conveys the intent of the loop.
There has been much talk about readability here and its very well constructed but as with all loops that are not fixed in size (ie. do while and while) you run at a risk.
His reasoning was that you could "forget the break" too easily and have an endless loop.
Within a while loop you are in fact asking for a process that runs indefinitely unless something happens, and if that something does not happen within a certain parameter, you will get exactly what you wanted... an endless loop.
What your friend recommend is different from what you did. Your own code is more akin to
do{
// do something
}while(!<some condition>);
which always run the loop at least once, regardless of the condition.
But there are times breaks are perfectly okay, as mentioned by others. In response to your friend's worry of "forget the break", I often write in the following form:
while(true){
// do something
if(<some condition>) break;
// continue do something
}
By good indentation, the break point is clear to first time reader of the code, look as structural as codes which break at the beginning or bottom of a loop.
It's not so much the while(true) part that's bad, but the fact that you have to break or goto out of it that is the problem. break and goto are not really acceptable methods of flow control.
I also don't really see the point. Even in something that loops through the entire duration of a program, you can at least have like a boolean called Quit or something that you set to true to get out of the loop properly in a loop like while(!Quit)... Not just calling break at some arbitrary point and jumping out,
using loops like
while(1) { do stuff }
is necessary in some situations. If you do any embedded systems programming (think microcontrollers like PICs, MSP430, and DSP programming) then almost all your code will be in a while(1) loop. When coding for DSPs sometimes you just need a while(1){} and the rest of the code is an interrupt service routine (ISR).
If you loop over an external condition (not being changed inside the loop), you use while(t), where t is the condition. However, if the loop stops when the condition changes inside the loop, it's more convenient to have the exit point explicitly marked with break, instead of waiting for it to happen on the next iteration of the loop:
while (true) {
...
a := a + 1;
if (a > 10) break; // right here!
...
}
As was already mentioned in a few other answers, the less code you have to keep in your head while reading a particular line, the better.