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.

适合系统编程的语言必须支持可变变量。

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。

标识列不能包含重复值: Sql server中的identity列

我很早就开始学习编程了。那时我14岁左右。我有各种疯狂的想法，但不要问我准确的时间，因为那是很久以前的事了。

Ok, so, I believed for a while that if you use the term synchronize in Java, then Java solves this nasting synchronizing thing for you I believed for at least half a year, likely more, that static typing would improve performance. I believed that freeing something would return memory back to the OS. I believed that malloc calls boil down to checking if there is enough free space on the OS, so malloc would be inexpensive. I thought a long while that Java was built with all the benefits and flaws of the other languages in mind, into a "perfect blend" that would take the best properties of the other languages and reject the mistakes. I vastly overestimated the number of cases where LinkedLists outperform ArrayLists. I thought that NP-hardness was a proof that no INSTANCE could be solved efficiently, which is trivially false, for a while. I thought that finding the best flight-plan on travel agency web sites would take so long because of the "Travelling Salesman Problem", as I proudly chuckled to my relatives (when I was small, alright?!)

还能想出更多。不知道我坚持了多久。对不起。

PS: 啊，好吧，这个被清除得并不慢，但我看到新手时不时地这样做，所以我想你可能会感兴趣:我还认为要存储不确定数量的东西，你需要为每个东西声明一个新变量。所以我要创建变量a1 a2 a3…，而不是使用一个变量a，我将它声明为一个向量。

在开始开发之前，您可以完全理解问题。