>>126
I don't consider Dijkstra an idiot! Bit vociferous tho. Of course, one is not a genius for parroting an opinionated fellow.

But considering what passed for programming in 1968, it was hardly unjustified to very often say "hang on, WTF are you actually trying to do here?" every time you manually GOTO'd (dmr: 'Bob Morris asked, almost conversationally, "what are the arguments to ld?" Someone told him.'), not unlike I ask myself every time I copy-paste code from SO like the nubcake I am.

The second edition of "The Elements of Programming Style" (1978) makes no less than nine mentions of avoiding GOTO and labels. We can surmise it was still a thing breaking code in the 70s.

Not so today, we have much nicer programming languages (C is one of them, this is how old 1968 is) and are still perfectly capable of producing absolute shit in very different ways, but at least in ways that don't wreck up the place like manually placed GOTOs were doing rather often, even unto newbies retyping typo'd BASIC code from a magazine. Today, a C programmer using "goto" probably knows why they've resorted to it (and there's a strong chance the reason is a nested for that can't be renegotiated).