通过实现客户想要的东西来满足客户——不幸的是，这意味着客户知道他想要什么。

作为一名老的过程式程序员，当我第一次开始为一个业余项目用Java编程时，我并不真正理解OO。编写了大量的代码，却没有真正理解接口的意义，试图通过将所有东西都强制放到继承层次结构中来最大化代码重用——当一个层次结构无法容纳清理时，希望Java具有多重继承。我的代码成功了，但我现在对早期的东西感到畏缩。

When I started reading about dynamic languages and trying to figure out a good one to learn, reading about Python's significant whitespace turned me off - I was convinced that I would hate that. But when I eventually learned Python, it became something I really like. We generally make the effort in whatever language to have consistent indent levels, but get nothing for it in return (other than the visual readability). In Python, I found that I wasn't doing any more effort than I had before with regard to indent levels, and Python handled what I'd been having to use braces or whatever for in other languages. It makes Python feel cleaner to me now.

通过学习一门精确的科学，我不需要提高我有限的社交技能。

这个:

SomeClass object(initialValue);

这:

SomeClass object = initialValue;

保证在c++中是等价的。我认为第二种形式肯定会被解释成第一种形式。并非如此:请参阅c++初始化语法。

人们知道他们想要什么。

在很长一段时间里，我以为我会和人们交谈，他们会描述一个问题或工作流程，我将其放入代码并自动化。结果每次发生这种情况，他们以为自己想要的并不是他们真正想要的。

Edit: I agree with most of the comments. This is not a technical answer and may not be what the questioner was looking for. It doesn't apply only to programming. I'm sure it's not my longest-held assumption either, but it was the most striking thing I've learned in the 10 short years I've been doing this. I'm sure it was pure naivete on my part but the way my brain is/was wired and the teaching and experiences I had prior to entering the business world led me to believe that I would be doing what I answered; that I would be able to use code and computers to fix people's problems.

我想这个答案类似于Robin关于非程序员理解/关心我所谈论的内容的回答。这是关于将业务作为一个敏捷的、迭代的、交互的过程来学习。它是关于学习编程猴子和软件开发人员之间的区别。这是关于意识到两者之间的区别，并且在该领域真正优秀，不仅仅是语法和输入速度。

编辑:这个答案现在是社区-wiki，以安抚人们对这个答案感到不安，给我代表。

我认为我应该尽可能地进行抽象。我的脑袋被这个撞了，因为太多交织在一起的小功能。

现在我试着让事情尽可能的简单和分离。重构使事物抽象比预测需要如何抽象要容易得多。

因此，我从开发规则它们的框架转移到完成工作的功能片段。从来没有回头，除了当我想起那段时间，我天真地认为我会是那个开发下一个大东西的人。