>I think the issue here may be that someone (I've no idea who, and I'm not going to go back and find out) said "support structured programming" when he meant "enforce structured programming".
The issue as always with Hansen is words and how people use them. Its easy enough to find plenty written about the term-of-art "structured programming". It generally means restricting oneself to sequence, controlled loops (do ..until), and if-then-else. No GOTOs. Now of course, any straight line program would be automatically structured, but in normal language we wouldn't say someone in the nineteen-fifties was writing according to the dictates of "structured programming", because their was generally no consciousness of *that* term with *that* meaning. Of course various programmers had ideas on how best to structure their code. Every piece of code has some kind of structure, even if poor. There was also plenty of disagreement from good minds with Dijkstra about exactly what good structure should be practiced (or supported, or enforced, if you like.) I'm not disputing any of that.
Its a simple matter of knowing what the term-of-art "structured programming" means in the usual contexts its employed in. Hansen *never* wants to use words with their usual meanings in the usual contexts. I think its simply lack of education. When called, he gets bizarrely elaborate, as do many of his kindred spirits.