我正在对初级(也许是高级)软件工程师所犯的常见错误和错误假设进行一些研究。
你坚持时间最长、最终被纠正的假设是什么?
例如,我误解了整数的大小不是标准的,而是取决于语言和目标。说起来有点尴尬,但事实就是这样。
坦率地说;你有什么坚定的信念?你大概坚持了多长时间?它可以是关于一种算法、一种语言、一个编程概念、测试,或者任何关于编程、编程语言或计算机科学的东西。
我正在对初级(也许是高级)软件工程师所犯的常见错误和错误假设进行一些研究。
你坚持时间最长、最终被纠正的假设是什么?
例如,我误解了整数的大小不是标准的,而是取决于语言和目标。说起来有点尴尬,但事实就是这样。
坦率地说;你有什么坚定的信念?你大概坚持了多长时间?它可以是关于一种算法、一种语言、一个编程概念、测试,或者任何关于编程、编程语言或计算机科学的东西。
当前回答
用汇编语言进行优化=重写。
When I first really understood assembly (coming from BASIC) it seemed that the only way to make code run faster was to rewrite it in assembly. Took quite a few years to realize that compilers can be very good at optimization and especially with CPUs with branch prediction etc they can probably do a better job than a human can do in a reasonable amount of time. Also that spending time on optimizing the algorithm is likely to give you a better win than spending time converting from a high to a low level language. Also that premature optimization is the root of all evil...
其他回答
不熟悉SQL和关系数据库的过程开发人员/程序员不需要任何正式的培训,也不需要了解如何使用SQL,快速阅读SQL For Dummies之类的东西就足以使用像Oracle和SQL Server这样的关系数据库。
在处理存储在关系数据库(如Oracle和SQL Server)中的数据的应用程序中,许多错误往往是由于缺乏对关系数据库语言的理解或如何使用造成的;SQL。
I used to work for a software vendor who had the mentality that all a developer needed was the SQL For Dummies book or something similiar and they would be fully equipped to handle any relational database issue. Now that the clients of this vendor have databases measuring in hundreds of gigabytes this lack of SQL knowledge is coming back around in a negative way. It's not just bad performing lookups and or updates and inserts that are a problem but the actual design of the database itself that is the real obstacle.
如果当时开发主管能够像对待他们构建应用程序所用的语言那样对待SQL和关系数据库,那么所有这些都是可以避免的,而且成本也会低得多。
不要认为SQL不重要,因为它最终会回来困扰你。你可能可以在一段时间内摆脱它,甚至几年,但你最终会达到一个断点,在没有完全重新设计数据库的情况下,你无法继续前进,那是成本最高的时候。
与UNIX相比,NT操作系统的设计有缺陷。事实证明,NT内核和设计决策与任何现代的UNIX类系统非常相似,内核中的大多数问题都是由有漏洞的公司编写的第三方漏洞驱动程序造成的。
软件工程师总是诚实地告诉你他们现在在做什么,或者过去对你的软件做了什么。
. net结构体(c#和VB.NET)是引用类型,就像类一样。
我是在。net 1.0出现之前或之后的某个时刻“收到”这条智慧的(我不知道从哪里来的,它可能完全从我的脑海中冒出来,就像雅典娜从宙斯的额头上冒出来一样),并一直保存着它,直到大约4个月前Jon Skeet对这个概念进行了消除。
感谢乔恩。
附注:与编程无关,但我也相信(直到5分钟前)“阿波罗从宙斯的额头上长成了一个完整的阿波罗”。
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.