No, I totally agree with him. But he was talking about unstructured BASIC
But he claims that anyone who's been taught BASIC has been irreperably damaged. Like I said, I learned to program in GW-BASIC, which is one of the unstructed versions (line numbers, no subroutines). By Dijkstra's reasoning, I would therefore be unable toever learn to program properly because of the bad stuff I'd learned from BASIC. Which, if I do say so myself, it just blatantly untrue.
By contrast, I would argue that if it weren't for BASIC, I wouldn't be a programmer at all. BASIC was available (included with MS-DOS 4). BASIC was easy to learn by trial and error and got you immediate results without working through the whole book.
Sure, the code I wrote had no structure and had variables named a, b, c, but it still pulled me into that world and itdid not do any lasting damage.
I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself there. The more you work in real industry as a software engineer, the more you realise how much you don't really know about proper design patterns and OO.
I started programming in a structured language with no-OO. I thought I was hot sh!t back then, coding up 500 line functions with multiple switch statements. I didn't know what "clean code" and proper OO is, and honestly I don't totally get it yet. I'd be scared to think what would have happened if I used BASIC for years.
No matter what you think you know about design: there is still alot to learn. Even Martin Fowler and company come out with new books and new ideas all the time. It takes years and years of code reviews and constant refactoring to really get how to design a system really well (arugably no one ever really "gets it", but whatever).
Sure maybe you know all of this coming out of college, but I doubt it. No offense bro, just how it is. Not saying Dijkstra is totally right, but you really can not accurately judge yourself at this stage of your career.