我仍然对以下的一些误解感到困扰——尽管我知道这些误解是正确的，但我仍然试图抓住它们不放:

All stakeholders will make decisions about software design objectively. Those that aren't embroiled in writing the code make all sorts of decisions based entirely on emotion that don't always make sense to us developers. Project budgets always make sense - I've seen companies that are quite happy to drop [just for example] $50,000 a month for years rather than pay $250,000 to have a project completed in 6 months. The government for one loses their annual budget if they don't spend it - so spend it they will, come hell or high water. It astounds me at how many project dollars are wasted on things like this. You should always use the right tools for the right job - sometimes this decision is not in your hands. Sometimes it comes down from on high that "thou shalt use X technology" for this project, leaving you thinking "WTF! Who came up with that ridiculous idea?"... the guy paying your paycheque, that's who, now get it done. Programming ideology comes first and foremost, everything else is secondary. In reality, deadlines and business objectives need to be met in order to get your paycheque. Sometimes you make the worst decisions because you just don't have time to do it the right way... just as sometimes that word is on the tip of your tongue but the minute it takes to recall it makes you choose a different and less ideal word. There isn't always time to do it right, sometimes there is only time to do it - however that may be. Hence oft' seen anti-patterns used by so called experienced developers who have to knock out a solution to a problem 10 minutes before the presentation deadline for the software being delivered to your best client tomorrow.

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.

喂!,

我只是在设计和写代码。

没有需求收集、文档或支持。

欢呼,

我从没想过我会成为一名专业程序员，我以为我会从事电子工作。但最终，编程更容易，薪水也更高，所以最初的副业变成了我的主要工作。

html元素id和name属性是可以互换的。

事实证明，带有'name'属性的元素是相关的/被使用的。引用post等和'id'属性用于DOM引用。

Unix和Linux操作系统设计得很好……我可能应该限定这个(!)

首先，这一观点被一些反真理的观点所强化，例如:

每个后续开发的操作系统最终都以对Unix的拙劣重新设计而告终(Lisp也是如此，在那里它更正确)。 构成“Unix哲学”的一系列规则。这并不是说他们错了，而是暗示Unix本身紧跟他们的步伐。

更确切地说，它们设计得很好/做得很好，当然其中一部分确实如此，但即便如此，这也只是相对的判断，相对于一些糟糕的Windows版本。下面是一些做得不好的事情的例子:

配置一团糟，特别平面文件配置不好 C语言在很久以前就应该被(类似D语言的)语言所取代 Shell脚本是精神分裂。它不利于开发，因为它是为快速输入而设计的速记。 目录结构命名不当 GNU工具链是不必要的神秘 一般目的总是胜过特殊目的的信念

总的来说，它们需要不必要的专业知识来操作。或者更确切地说，有大量的知识，而只有适度的理解。

也不全是坏事。Linux在政治上更好，不会被业务需求所破坏，但遗憾的是，在很大程度上，很多技术高地已经失去了。