The last post argued that break, continue, and labeled jumps are structured goto — disciplined jumps that keep code linear. Two ordinary language features are jumps in disguise: yield, which suspends a function and later resumes it in the middle, and throw, which leaps across stack frames to a waiting handler.

“Go To Statement Considered Harmful” is one of the most-quoted titles in programming, and almost nobody reads past it. The argument underneath is narrower than the slogan it became — and the reflex it bred, avoiding every jump, produces code worse than the goto it was meant to replace.

We spend a lot of effort making code run and almost none making it argue. An invariant is the cheap proof tool that turns “I think this loop is right” into “I know it is” — and we already use them without naming them.

The third article in the series, still on conditions. The previous installment was about their shape — merging ifs, factoring shared decisions, dropping checks that earn nothing. This one reaches for the other lever: the algebra of the conditions themselves — not a textbook tour, just the handful of transformations I lean on in everyday code.

The second article in the series. The first was about control flow; this one stays with the same tactic — reshaping code — one layer down, at the condition. Here: merging ifs, factoring shared decisions, and dropping checks that earn nothing. The Boolean algebra of conditions — De Morgan and friends — is a different lever, and gets its own installment next time.

You can find plenty of articles about design — where and how to use SQL, NoSQL, message queues, Redis, VMs, and so on. Almost nobody writes about tactics: the actual coding. It borders on style, but it isn’t just style. This is the first article in a series on tactics I use day to day. Highly opinionated — I don’t expect you to follow it. Look, chuckle, think about it, and use what you like.