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.