I think it's a reference to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful

I thought it might be, but isn't that backwards then? (Or is bencollier49 arguing against GOTO?)

It was Dijkstra who wrote "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" and it was Knuth in reply who wrote the best analysis (and defence in appropriate contexts) of the GOTO statement (in Structured Programming with Go To Statements: https://pic.plover.com/knuth-GOTO.pdf), and who still uses GOTO cheerfully and liberally in his programs. (https://twitter.com/svat/status/913114286951505920 , https://twitter.com/svat/status/885344334735745024 , https://github.com/shreevatsa/knuth-literate-programs/blob/m... ) — so it seems really hard to understand that a comment that seems to be positive about GOTO is invoking as "wrong" the name of probably the most prominent programmer to still use them. Very puzzling. Of course it might just be a mistake, confusing Dijkstra for Knuth, but worth asking for clarification.

Also relevant is EWD's belief that exposure to BASIC inflicts permanent damage on a student's brains.

edit:

> It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

from EWD498: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EW...)

It was Dijkstra! My mistake!

Ah ok, thought it might be, thanks for clarifying. :-) You may like to look into Knuth's reasons for liking goto.