是的，GOTO仍然被认为是有害的。当您发现自己处于使用GOTO可能有效的罕见情况时，您应该对自己的编程技能有足够的信心，而不需要其他人的验证。任何类似GOTO的函数允许你在GOTO允许的范围内跳得更远，都应该被认为比GOTO更危险。

没有所谓的GOTO被认为是有害的。

GOTO是一种工具，和所有工具一样，它可以被使用和滥用。

然而，在编程世界中有许多工具倾向于被滥用而不是被使用，GOTO就是其中之一。Delphi的WITH语句是另一个。

就我个人而言，我在典型的代码中不使用这两种方法，但我有过GOTO和WITH的奇怪用法，这是有保证的，另一种解决方案将包含更多的代码。

最好的解决方案是编译器只警告你关键字被污染了，你必须在语句周围塞几个pragma指令来消除警告。

这就像告诉你的孩子不要拿着剪刀跑。剪刀并不坏，但使用它们可能不是保持健康的最佳方式。

跳跃的例子在Java字符串类源代码:

int firstUpper;

/* Now check if there are any characters that need to be changed. */
scan: {
    for (firstUpper = 0 ; firstUpper < count; ) {
         char c = value[offset+firstUpper];
         if ((c >= Character.MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE) &&
                 (c <= Character.MAX_HIGH_SURROGATE)) {
             int supplChar = codePointAt(firstUpper);
             if (supplChar != Character.toLowerCase(supplChar)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper += Character.charCount(supplChar);
         } else {
             if (c != Character.toLowerCase(c)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper++;
         }
     }
     return this;
}
[... subsequent use of firstUpper ...]

这可以用很少的开销重写，例如:

 int firstUpper = indexOfFirstUpper();
 if (firstUpper < 0) return this; 

即使在现代语言中，即使我实际上不喜欢使用gotos，但我认为它们在许多情况下是可以接受的，在像这样的低级情况下，我看起来更好(它不仅仅是退出循环)。

没有激起宗教战争的意图。

Using a goto makes it far too easy to write "spaghetti code" which is not particularly maintainable. The most important rule to follow is to write readable code, but of course it depends on what the goals of the project are. As a "best practice" avoiding a goto is a good idea. It's something extreme programming types would refer to as "code smell" because it indicates that you may be doing something wrong. Using a break while looping is remarkably similar to a goto, except it isn't a goto, but again is an indication that the code may not be optimal. This is why, I believe, it is also important to not find more modern programming loopholes which are essentially a goto by a different name.

被Jay Ballou添加的答案所吸引，我会加入0.02英镑。如果Bruno Ranschaert还没有这样做，我就会提到Knuth的“用GOTO语句进行结构化编程”的文章。

有一件事我没有看到讨论，那就是那种在Fortran教科书中教过的代码，尽管它并不常见。例如DO循环的扩展范围和开放代码子程序(记住，这将是Fortran II, Fortran IV或Fortran 66 -而不是Fortran 77或90)。至少有可能语法细节不准确，但概念应该足够准确。每种情况下的代码片段都在单个函数中。

请注意，由Kernighan和Plauger撰写的优秀但过时(并且绝版)的《编程风格的元素，第二版》中包含了一些来自那个时代(70年代末)编程教科书中滥用GOTO的现实例子。然而，下面的材料并不是来自那本书。

DO循环的扩展范围

       do 10 i = 1,30
           ...blah...
           ...blah...
           if (k.gt.4) goto 37
91         ...blah...
           ...blah...
10     continue
       ...blah...
       return
37     ...some computation...
       goto 91

One reason for such nonsense was the good old-fashioned punch-card. You might notice that the labels (nicely out of sequence because that was canonical style!) are in column 1 (actually, they had to be in columns 1-5) and the code is in columns 7-72 (column 6 was the continuation marker column). Columns 73-80 would be given a sequence number, and there were machines that would sort punch card decks into sequence number order. If you had your program on sequenced cards and needed to add a few cards (lines) into the middle of a loop, you'd have to repunch everything after those extra lines. However, if you replaced one card with the GOTO stuff, you could avoid resequencing all the cards - you just tucked the new cards at the end of the routine with new sequence numbers. Consider it to be the first attempt at 'green computing' - a saving of punch cards (or, more specifically, a saving of retyping labour - and a saving of consequential rekeying errors).

哦，你可能还注意到我在作弊，没有大喊大叫——Fortran IV通常都是大写的。

中非子例程

       ...blah...
       i = 1
       goto 76
123    ...blah...
       ...blah...
       i = 2
       goto 76
79     ...blah...
       ...blah...
       goto 54
       ...blah...
12     continue
       return
76     ...calculate something...
       ...blah...
       goto (123, 79) i
54     ...more calculation...
       goto 12

标签76和54之间的GOTO是计算GOTO的一个版本。如果变量i的值为1，则转到列表中的第一个标签(123);如果它的值是2，就转到秒，以此类推。从76到计算goto的片段是开放编码的子程序。它是一段执行起来很像子例程的代码，但写在函数体中。(Fortran也有语句函数——它们是嵌入在单行上的函数。)

还有比计算goto更糟糕的结构——你可以给变量赋标签，然后使用赋值的goto。google assigned goto告诉我它已经从Fortran 95中删除了。值得注意的是，结构化编程革命可以说是从Dijkstra的“GOTO被认为是有害的”信件或文章开始的。

如果不了解Fortran语言(以及其他语言，其中大多数已经半途而用了)中所做的事情，我们这些新手很难理解Dijkstra所处理的问题的范围。见鬼，直到那封信发表10年后，我才开始编程(但我确实不幸地在Fortran IV中编程了一段时间)。

如果GOTO本身是邪恶的，那么编译器也是邪恶的，因为它们生成jmp。如果跳转到代码块，特别是跟随一个指针，在本质上是邪恶的，那么RETurn指令就是邪恶的。相反，邪恶在于滥用的可能性。

有时我不得不编写应用程序，必须跟踪许多对象，其中每个对象必须遵循复杂的状态序列来响应事件，但整个事情绝对是单线程的。一个典型的状态序列，如果用伪代码表示，将是:

request something
wait for it to be done
while some condition
    request something
    wait for it
    if one response
        while another condition
            request something
            wait for it
            do something
        endwhile
        request one more thing
        wait for it
    else if some other response
        ... some other similar sequence ...
    ... etc, etc.
endwhile

我相信这不是新的，但我在C(++)中处理它的方式是定义一些宏:

#define WAIT(n) do{state=(n); enque(this); return; L##n:;}while(0)
#define DONE state = -1

#define DISPATCH0 if state < 0) return;
#define DISPATCH1 if(state==1) goto L1; DISPATCH0
#define DISPATCH2 if(state==2) goto L2; DISPATCH1
#define DISPATCH3 if(state==3) goto L3; DISPATCH2
#define DISPATCH4 if(state==4) goto L4; DISPATCH3
... as needed ...

然后(假设初始状态为0)上面的结构化状态机转换为结构化代码:

{
    DISPATCH4; // or as high a number as needed
    request something;
    WAIT(1); // each WAIT has a different number
    while (some condition){
        request something;
        WAIT(2);
        if (one response){
            while (another condition){
                request something;
                WAIT(3);
                do something;
            }
            request one more thing;
            WAIT(4);
        }
        else if (some other response){
            ... some other similar sequence ...
        }
        ... etc, etc.
    }
    DONE;
}

在此基础上，可以有CALL和RETURN，因此一些状态机可以像其他状态机的子例程一样工作。

不寻常吗?是的。维护者是否需要学习一些知识?是的。这种学习有回报吗?我想是的。如果没有跳转到方块中的goto，游戏还能完成吗?不。