The rap against "while True:" loops

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-10-11, Hendrik van Rooyen <hendrik at microcorp.co.za> wrote:
>
> It is often necessary, in long running applications, to set up
> loops that you would really like to run until the end of time.
> - the equivalent of a "serve forever" construct.  Then while
> True is the obvious way to spell it.

Once upon a time I was working on the software requirements
specifications for a missile launcher for the US Navy.  In the
section on the system's scheduler task I wrote something like
this:

  The scheduler shall consist of an infinite loop that executes
  the following:

    1. Call this function.
 
    2. Call that function.    

    [...]

The review team (mainly from Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Lab) told me I couldn't put an infinite loop in the
requirements document.

I replied, "OK, when or under what circumstances do you want
the launcher to stop working?"

They said that I misunderstood their comment.  I can (and
indeed must) have an infinite loop in the software. I just
can't put the phrase "infinite loop" in the document.  They
explained that ship captains get to review these documents.
Ship captains all took a year of undergrad FORTRAN programming
and therefore believe that an infinite loop is a bad thing.

I changed the text to read something like this:

  The secheduler shall repeatedly execute the following until
  the system is powered off or reset:

    1. Call this function.
 
    2. Call that function.    

    [...]

Everybody was happy.

Tax dollars at work...

-- 
Grant