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.

在我刚开始学习c++的时候(很多时候)，我周围都是Java学者。当被问及c++相对于Java的优势时(我通常会认为这是一个做作的问题，但就是这样)，我会在我的回答中包括c++提供了引用和指针。Java的家伙会看起来难以置信，并建议引用是指针，并把我笑出了房间。我坚持在c++中引用和指针是不同的。

说句公道话，我是对的。引用和指针在语义和语法上是不同的。不幸的是，我用一个谬论来支持我的说法:底层实现是不同的。

我坚信，通过标准化，引用是语法中的名称别名，就像typedef是没有存储空间的类型别名一样。

我确信引用不是对象，也没有存储空间，它们只是提供了从“名称”到“对象”的多个顶级映射。在这方面，我认为它们就像文件系统中的软链接:

Code: int a = 3; int& b = a;

 Names          Objects           Memory

+-----+     +-------------+     +-------+
|  a  |---->|             |     |       |
+-----+     |             |     |       |
            |     int     |---->|   3   |
+-----+     |             |     |       |
|  b  |---->|             |     |       |
+-----+     +-------------+     +-------+

当然，尽管优化可能会导致这种情况，但引用确实有存储空间。它们是不同的对象，即使语法尽力将其从程序员那里抽象出来。

可以这么说，我很失望地了解到，关闭优化的编译器可能会将引用作为指针实现，需要一个解引用操作:我实际上是在文件系统中创建一个硬链接的类比:

Code: int a = 3; int& b = a;

 Names          Objects           Memory

+-----+     +-------------+     +-------+
|  a  |---->|     int     |---->|       |
+-----+     +-------------+     |       |
                                |   3   |
+-----+     +-------------+     |       |
|  b  |---->|     int&    |---->|       |
+-----+     +-------------+     +-------+

标准c++实际上并没有指定引用应该如何实现，所以我的理论可能适用于一些工具链，但在任何主流编译器中都不适用……当然标准中也没有说明。

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。

每个人都想为一个问题写出最好的、最合适的代码……

总有一天，我会有一个现实的想法，那就是构建一些重要的代码/系统/什么的需要多长时间。

选择和使用我们的开发方法是因为它们是最好的。

后来我发现，我们使用的工具对我们做什么、什么时候做、怎么做的影响比我想象的要大得多。