Are there any legitimate use-cases for "goto" in a language that supports loops and functions?

Question

Everybody who is anti-goto cites, directly or indirectly, Edsger Dijkstra's GoTo Considered Harmful article to substantiate their position. Too bad Dijkstra's article has virtually nothing to do with the way goto statements are used these days and thus what the article says has little to no applicability to the modern programming scene. The goto-less meme verges now on a religion, right down to its scriptures dictated from on high, its high priests and the shunning (or worse) of perceived heretics.

Let's put Dijkstra's paper into context to shed a little light on the subject.

When Dijkstra wrote his paper the popular languages of the time were unstructured procedural ones like BASIC, FORTRAN (the earlier dialects) and various assembly languages. It was quite common for people using the higher-level languages to jump all over their code base in twisted, contorted threads of execution that gave rise to the term "spaghetti code". You can see this by hopping on over to the classic Trek game written by Mike Mayfield and trying to figure out how things work. Take a few moments to look that over.

THIS is "the unbridled use of the go to statement" that Dijkstra was railing against in his paper in 1968. THIS is the environment he lived in that led him to write that paper. The ability to jump anywhere you like in your code at any point you liked was what he was criticising and demanding be stopped. Comparing that to the anaemic powers of goto in C or other such more modern languages is simply risible.

I can already hear the raised chants of the cultists as they face the heretic. "But," they will chant, "you can make code very difficult to read with goto in C." Oh yeah? You can make code very difficult to read without goto as well. Like this one:

#define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
            _-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
            _-_-_-_
}

Not a goto in sight, so it must be easy to read, right? Or how about this one:

a[900];     b;c;d=1     ;e=1;f;     g;h;O;      main(k,
l)char*     *l;{g=      atoi(*      ++l);       for(k=
0;k*k<      g;b=k       ++>>1)      ;for(h=     0;h*h<=
g;++h);     --h;c=(     (h+=g>h     *(h+1))     -1)>>1;
while(d     <=g){       ++O;for     (f=0;f<     O&&d<=g
;++f)a[     b<<5|c]     =d++,b+=    e;for(      f=0;f<O
&&d<=g;     ++f)a[b     <<5|c]=     d++,c+=     e;e= -e
;}for(c     =0;c<h;     ++c){       for(b=0     ;b<k;++
b){if(b     <k/2)a[     b<<5|c]     ^=a[(k      -(b+1))
<<5|c]^=    a[b<<5      |c]^=a[     (k-(b+1     ))<<5|c]
;printf(    a[b<<5|c    ]?"%-4d"    :"    "     ,a[b<<5
|c]);}      putchar(    '\n');}}    /*Mike      Laman*/

No goto there either. It must therefore be readable.

What's my point with these examples? It's not language features that make unreadable, unmaintainable code. It's not syntax that does it. It's bad programmers that cause this. And bad programmers, as you can see in that above item, can make any language feature unreadable and unusable. Like the for loops up there. (You can see them, right?)

Now to be fair, some language constructs are easier to abuse than others. If you're a C programmer, however, I'd peer far more closely at about 50% of the uses of #define long before I'd go on a crusade against goto!

So, for those who've bothered to read this far, there are several key points to note.

1. Dijkstra's paper on goto statements was written for a programming environment where goto was a lot more potentially damaging than it is in most modern languages that aren't an assembler.
2. Automatically throwing away all uses of goto because of this is about as rational as saying "I tried to have fun once but didn't like it so now I'm against it".
3. There are legitimate uses of the modern (anaemic) goto statements in code that cannot be adequately replaced by other constructs.
4. There are, of course, illegitimate uses of the same statements.
5. There are, too, illegitimate uses of the modern control statements like the "godo" abomination where an always-false do loop is broken out of using break in place of a goto. These are often worse than judicious use of goto.

There are a few reasons for using the "goto" statement that I'm aware of (some have spoken to this already):

Cleanly exiting a function

Often in a function, you may allocate resources and need to exit in multiple places. Programmers can simplify their code by putting the resource cleanup code at the end of the function, and all "exit points" of the function would goto the cleanup label. This way, you don't have to write cleanup code at every "exit point" of the function.

Exiting nested loops

If you're in a nested loop and need to break out of all loops, a goto can make this much cleaner and simpler than break statements and if-checks.

Low-level performance improvements

This is only valid in perf-critical code, but goto statements execute very quickly and can give you a boost when moving through a function. This is a double-edged sword, however, because a compiler typically cannot optimize code that contains gotos.

Note that in all these examples, gotos are restricted to the scope of a single function.

Obeying best practices blindly is not a best practice. The idea of avoiding goto statements as one's primary form of flow control is to avoid producing unreadable spaghetti code. If used sparingly in the right places, they can sometimes be the simplest, clearest way of expressing an idea. Walter Bright, the creator of the Zortech C++ compiler and the D programming language, uses them frequently, but judiciously. Even with the goto statements, his code is still perfectly readable.

Bottom line: Avoiding goto for the sake of avoiding goto is pointless. What you really want to avoid is producing unreadable code. If your goto-laden code is readable, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Well, there's one thing that's always worse than goto's; strange use of other programflow operators to avoid a goto:

Examples:

    // 1
    try{
      ...
      throw NoErrorException;
      ...
    } catch (const NoErrorException& noe){
      // This is the worst
    } 


    // 2
    do {
      ...break; 
      ...break;
    } while (false);


    // 3
    for(int i = 0;...) { 
      bool restartOuter = false;
      for (int j = 0;...) {
        if (...)
          restartOuter = true;
      if (restartOuter) {
        i = -1;
      }
    }

etc
etc