The immediate second thought that came was the famous quote “I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras”, from Alan Kay should I believe https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/69528-i-don-t-know-how-many...
The same applies to Dijkstra.
You could start with this account of the Dijkstra-Zonneveld Algol 60 compiler written by Kruseman Aretz: https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/4155.
BASICs are perhaps the language HN readers are most likely to have seen which (in some cases) have the GOTO feature Dijkstra wrote the letter about, if you've seen goto in C for example, or C++, that resembles the go-to statement superficially, but in practice it's not very dangerous because it's constrained. Suppose my C++ f() recursive function adds a "goto" - it's not allowed to jump into a different function g(), it's not even allowed to jump into a different iteration of the same function f(), it's only allowed to change which part of the current iteration of the current function happens next, and it can't skip the destruction or initialization of variables, or other book keeping.
There's the old adage that you "can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." I wonder what those who give up on humility think they're actually gaining?
We are talking about the person that institutionalized the "we people aren't smart enough to do X" line of thinking from software engineering.
Of course, he was also quick to call a spade a spade, but I haven seeing any case of him denouncing something that wasn't obviously bad.
But Dijkstra is the poster child for that sort of thing.