GOTO - I still love you!!!

In the end, readability /must/ be the criterion that trumps all others.
However, I am astounded at the number of 'programmers' who say, "Sure, your
program is easy to read, the structure is great, you adhere to naming
standards, and your database is complete...but you use GOTO's, and GOTO's
aren't allowed in our shop.  Oh, neither is ILE RPG, embedded SQL, or
WDSCi."

That's the attitude that makes the offshore gang swoon in anticipation:
using nested DOU *IN03 on a complex, multi-format, interactive program only
because GOTO's are "bad" murders our productivity just for the sake of
sticking to a principle; economics, in the end, is pragmatism.  So let's
play the hand we're dealt: we have a great language and let's use the full
range of its functionality; plus, it's wonderful that ILE RPG just fits on
those 80-column cards I'm still using.  

The Toronto RPG team regularly breaks IBM's most important rule ("Never ask
the customers what they want") by giving us a voice in language
enhancements.  Trying to make RPG look and work exactly like other languages
is a mistake (consider IBM's other experiments in homogeneity: SAA, Eclipse,
etc.) but providing compatibility with Java and other "cool" languages added
considerable value to RPG, our applications, and our careers.  RPG is not
perfect but it's carried me and my customers very well for over 30 years.
GOTO, LEAVE, and ITER all have their place in the language; I use them all
and can vigorously defend their use in the context of the program.  

Has anybody considered hosting a "peer review" site for the purpose of
getting 3rd party opinions on coding style and technique?  Just to keep
something like that interesting, I think flaming /should/ be allowed. :) 

Talking about rebranding: moving from "goto" to "flow control phrase" (with
attribution and thanks to Mark Walter) is today's koan.

Ommmm...

-reeve