每个人都知道Dijkstra的《致编辑的信》:goto语句被认为是有害的(这里。html transcript和这里。pdf)，从那时起，就有一种强大的推动力，尽可能避免使用goto语句。虽然可以使用goto来生成不可维护的、庞大的代码，但它仍然存在于现代编程语言中。即使Scheme中先进的连续控制结构也可以被描述为复杂的后向。
在什么情况下需要使用goto?什么时候最好避免?
作为一个后续问题:C提供了一对函数setjmp()和longjmp()，它们不仅提供了在当前堆栈帧内进行跳转的能力，还提供了在任何调用帧内进行跳转的能力。这些应该被认为和goto一样危险吗?更危险?
Dijkstra自己也对这个头衔感到后悔，因为这不是他的责任。在EWD1308的结尾(也在这里。pdf)，他写道:
Finally a short story for the record.
In 1968, the Communications of the ACM
published a text of mine under the
title "The goto statement considered
harmful", which in later years would
be most frequently referenced,
regrettably, however, often by authors
who had seen no more of it than its
title, which became a cornerstone of
my fame by becoming a template: we
would see all sorts of articles under
the title "X considered harmful" for
almost any X, including one titled
"Dijkstra considered harmful". But
what had happened? I had submitted a
paper under the title "A case against
the goto statement", which, in order
to speed up its publication, the
editor had changed into a "letter to
the Editor", and in the process he had
given it a new title of his own
invention! The editor was Niklaus
Wirth.
Donald E. Knuth写了一篇关于这个主题的经典论文，它与Dijkstra的论文相匹配，那就是结构化编程与语句。阅读既有助于重建上下文，也有助于对主题的非教条性理解。在本文中，Dijkstra对这个案例的观点被报道，并且更加强烈:
Donald E. Knuth:我相信通过呈现这样一个
事实上，我并不是不同意
Dijkstra的观点，因为
他最近写道:
“请不要落入。
相信我是可怕的
教条的关于[去]的教条的
声明)。我觉得很不舒服
感觉别人在做
宗教出来了，好像
编程的概念问题
只用一个小技巧就能解决，用什么
一种简单的编码纪律!”
我们已经讨论过这个问题了，我坚持我的观点。
此外，我受够了人们将高级语言结构描述为“伪装的goto”，因为他们显然根本没有抓住重点。例如:
即使Scheme中先进的连续控制结构也可以被描述为复杂的后向。
那完全是胡说八道。每个控制结构都可以在goto方面实现，但这个观察完全是微不足道和无用的。Goto被认为是有害的，因为它的积极影响，而是因为它的消极后果，这些已经被结构化编程消除了。
Similarly, saying “GOTO is a tool, and as all tools, it can be used and abused” is completely off the mark. No modern construction worker would use a rock and claim it “is a tool.” Rocks have been replaced by hammers. goto has been replaced by control structures. If the construction worker were stranded in the wild without a hammer, of course he would use a rock instead. If a programmer has to use an inferior programming language that doesn't have feature X, well, of course she may have to use goto instead. But if she uses it anywhere else instead of the appropriate language feature she clearly hasn't understood the language properly and uses it wrongly. It's really as simple as that.
Go To可以在某些情况下为“真正的”异常处理提供一种替代品。考虑:
ptr = malloc(size);
if (!ptr) goto label_fail;
bytes_in = read(f_in,ptr,size);
if (bytes_in=<0) goto label_fail;
bytes_out = write(f_out,ptr,bytes_in);
if (bytes_out != bytes_in) goto label_fail;
显然，这段代码被简化了，以占用更少的空间，所以不要太纠结于细节。但是考虑一下我在产品代码中多次看到的另一种选择，即程序员为了避免使用goto而费尽心机:
success=false;
do {
ptr = malloc(size);
if (!ptr) break;
bytes_in = read(f_in,ptr,size);
if (count=<0) break;
bytes_out = write(f_out,ptr,bytes_in);
if (bytes_out != bytes_in) break;
success = true;
} while (false);
现在这段代码在功能上做了完全相同的事情。事实上，编译器生成的代码几乎完全相同。然而，在程序员对Nogoto(可怕的学术指责之神)的热情中，这个程序员完全打破了while循环所代表的底层习惯，并对代码的可读性造成了实质性的影响。这样也好不到哪里去。
所以，这个故事的寓意是，如果你发现自己为了避免使用goto而求助于一些非常愚蠢的事情，那么就不要这样做。
今天，很难看出GOTO语句有什么大不了的，因为“结构化编程”的人赢得了这场辩论，今天的语言有足够的控制流结构来避免GOTO。
计算现代C程序中goto的数量。现在添加break、continue和return语句的数量。此外，加上你使用if、else、while、switch或case的次数。这是1968年Dijkstra写这封信时，如果你用FORTRAN或BASIC语言编写程序，你的程序会有多少个goto。
当时的编程语言缺乏控制流程。例如，在最初的达特茅斯BASIC中:
IF statements had no ELSE. If you wanted one, you had to write:
100 IF NOT condition THEN GOTO 200
...stuff to do if condition is true...
190 GOTO 300
200 REM else
...stuff to do if condition is false...
300 REM end if
Even if your IF statement didn't need an ELSE, it was still limited to a single line, which usually consisted of a GOTO.
There was no DO...LOOP statement. For non-FOR loops, you had to end the loop with an explicit GOTO or IF...GOTO back to the beginning.
There was no SELECT CASE. You had to use ON...GOTO.
因此，您的程序中最终出现了许多goto。并且您不能依赖于goto限制在单个子例程中(因为GOSUB…RETURN是一个非常弱的子例程概念)，所以这些goto可以去任何地方。显然，这使得控制流难以遵循。
这就是反goto运动的由来。
