Part of GP's point is that none of those are "real" gotos. C doesn't have them. C has a construct called "goto" which resembles goto the way that a vacuum clean

Part of GP's point is that none of those are "real" gotos. C doesn't have them. C has a construct called "goto" which resembles goto the way that a vacuum cleaner resembles a black hole. A constrained, neutered, much safer shadow of the real thing. If anything, the value of C's goto is evidence in favor of Dijkstra's argument more than against it. Real-world programs don't need real gotos, and the situations where you want them are perfectly well-served by constrained, limited replacements. Like function calls, for-loops, and the thingy that C calls a "goto." For the sake of completeness: there's two main ways in which C's gotos are limited. The first is that they are function-scoped, the second is that they are declared labels rather than arbitrary program points. We nowadays consider that encapsulating data is a good thing. The idea of encapsulated control flow is so taken-for-granted that we don't even realize it could otherwise, but that's effectively what a true goto is.