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.

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.

ide会变得更快。

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。

这是因为我在我的“标准”环境中构建了软件，它可以在每个人的机器/服务器上工作。只是发现我安装了一些实际上正在使用的不知名的库和服务。然后发现我利用了一个漏洞，这个漏洞后来被修补了。

不要使用高级的特定于实现的特性，因为你可能“有时”想要切换实现。我这样做了一次又一次，几乎无一例外地，这种转换从未发生过。