当我第一次听说“鸭子打字”时，我以为它实际上是“管道打字”，类似于人们经常说的鸭子胶带。“Duck typing”听起来是错误的，而“pipe typing”则有一种奇怪的意义(拼凑的类型)。

因为性能问题，像Java和。net这样的虚拟机架构对于除了玩具项目之外的任何东西都毫无价值。

(好吧，公平地说，也许在某些时候这是真的。)

我最大的先入之见是，我将被允许以我想要的方式编程。当然，后来我离开了大学，进入了一家拥有荒谬框架、规则和程序的公司，这不仅意味着我不能以自己想要的方式编程，而且意味着我编程得很糟糕。

:

for (int i = 0; i < myObj.variable; i = i + 1)

优化为:

int j = myObj.variable; 
for (int i = 0; i < j; i = i + 1)

哇，当我意识到它们每次都在运行时，我停止在j的地方放入函数调用!

原因:

for (int i = 0; i < myObj.variable; i = i + 1){ 
    if (function_argument == NULL){ 
        myObj.variable++; 
    } else { 
        printf("%d", myObj.variable);
    }
}

并不等同于:

int j = myObj.variable;
for (int i = 0; i < j; i = i + 1){ 
    if (function_argument == NULL){ 
        myObj.variable++; 
    } else { 
        printf("%d", myObj.variable);
    }
}

任意的例子，但是您可以看到优化将如何改变执行。

@Kyralessa: It's worth noting that on most processors, in assembly/machine language, it's possible for functions to return someplace other than their caller while leaving the stack in good condition. Indeed, there are a variety of situations where this can be useful. One variation I first saw on the 6502, though it works even better on the Z80, was a print-message routine where the text to be printed immediately followed the call instruction; execution would resume after the zero terminator (or, as a slight optimization when using the Z80, at the zero terminator, since letting the zero byte be executed as a NOP would be cheaper than trying to avoid it).

有趣的是，在许多现代语言中，函数都有一个正常的退出点(将在调用之后恢复执行)，但也可以通过抛出异常退出。即使在C语言中，也可以使用setjmp/longjmp来模拟这种行为。

My co-workers were/are producing supposedly bad code because they sucked/suck. It took me a while to learn that I should first check what really happened. Most of the times, bad code was caused by lack of management, customers who didn't want to check what they really wanted and started changing their minds like there's no tomorrow, or other circunstances out of anyone's control, like economic crysis. Customers demand "for yesterday" features because they are stupid: Not really. It's about communication. If someone tells them it everything can really be done in 1 week, guess what? they'll want it in 1 week. "Never change code that works". This is not a good thing IMO. You obviously don't have to change what's really working. However, if you never change a piece of code because it's supposedly working and it's too complex to change, you may end up finding out that code isn't really doing what it's supposed to do. Eg: I've seen a sales commission calculation software doing wrong calculations for two years because nobody wanted to maintain the software. Nobody at sales knew about it. The formula was so complex they didn't really know how to check the numbers.