[randomdata]

break, continue, and even goto in any language created in the last several decades cannot leave the current function. These are not what Dijkstra was talking about. Dijkstra wrote the piece when structured programming was just starting to become a thing and was urging people towards it. Think more like goto in BASIC, where there is no bridling of the operator.

[gordian-not]

Yes, however I am not sure if Dijkstra meant goto in the sense of jump outside of a function. I don't know enough about Algol 60 and languages of the time, but if you allow usage of goto between different functions you will have a corrupt stack in no time, so I'll be surprised if it was implemented.

Going back to the original discussion, my point was that the only statements that are real gotos still in usage (except for C cleanup gotos) is break and continue, which even support labels

[randomdata]

Functions do not exist in the context of the "Go to statement considered harmful" paper, so there is no good analog in there. Further, he is specific that it is only about unbridled gotos. continue and break are decidedly bridled. In reality, the paper just doesn't apply to any language created in the last several decades, even those which use the goto keyword. We bought in to structured programming.

Except I posit that throw/catch still suffers the same problem he speaks of. It becomes difficult to follow when and where the code will jump to an arbitrary spot. The harmful parts of goto live on. Granted, we are learning. Modern languages are abandoning the throw/catch concept.

[gordian-not]

I agree about the somewhat unexpectedness of exceptions, although it is much structured than gotos (you just go up the stack)

virtual polymorphism for example is completely unexpected, as well as function pointers and other constructs that in my opinion are harder to track than exceptions