根据亚马逊创始人杰夫·贝佐斯的说法，最多只能吃两个披萨:

根据Steve McConnell在Code Complete中的说法，你应该这样做

限制一个程序的数量 参数约为7

什么时候被认为如此淫秽的东西可以被监管，尽管第一修正案保证了言论自由?根据波特·斯图尔特法官的说法，“当我看到它的时候，我就知道了。”这里也是一样。

我讨厌制定这样的硬性规则，因为答案不仅取决于项目的大小和范围，而且我认为它甚至会改变到模块级别。这取决于你的方法在做什么，或者这个类应该表示什么，2个参数很可能太多了，这是过度耦合的症状。

我建议通过在第一时间提出这个问题，并尽可能多地限定你的问题，你真的知道所有这些。这里最好的解决方案不是依赖于一个硬性的数字，而是在同行中查看设计评审和代码评审，以确定低内聚性和紧密耦合的领域。

不要害怕向同事展示你的工作成果。如果您害怕，这可能是您的代码有问题的更大迹象，并且您已经知道了它。

在《干净代码》一书中，罗伯特·c·马丁用了四页纸来讨论这个问题。要点如下:

a的理想参数数 函数为零(niladic)。接下来 一个(单体)，紧随其后的是两个 (二元)。三个参数(三元) 应该尽量避免。更多的 Than three (polyadic)要求very 特殊理由——然后 反正也不应该用。

非常感谢你的所有回答:

It was a bit surprising to find people who also think (like I do) that 5 parameters is a good limit for the sanity of the code. Generally, people tend to agree that a limit between 3 and 4 is good rule of thumb. This is reasonable as people usually have a bad time counting more than 4 things. As Milan points, on average people can keep more or less 7 things in their head at a time. But I think that you can't forget that, when you are designing/maintaining/studying a routine, you have to keep in mind more things than just the parameters. Some people consider that a routine should have as many arguments as it needs to. I agree, but only for a few specific cases (calls to OS APIs, routines where optimization is important, etc). I suggest to hide the complexity of these routines by adding a layer of abstraction just above these calls whenever possible. Nick has some interesting thoughts on this. If you don't want to read his comments, I summarize for you: in a nutshell, it depends: I hate making hard and fast rules like this because the answer changes not only depending on the size and scope of your project, but I think it changes even down to the module level. Depending on what your method is doing, or what the class is supposed to represent, it's quite possible that 2 arguments is too many and is a symptom of too much coupling. The moral here is don't be afraid of showing your code to your peers, discuss with them and try to "identify areas where you have low cohesion and tight coupling". Finally, I think wnoise much agrees with Nick, and concludes his satirical contribution with this poetical vision (see comments below) of the art of programming: Programming is not engineering. Organization of code is an art because it depends on human factors, which depend too much on context for any hard rule.

多了一个。我并不是说要油嘴滑舌，但是有些函数确实需要一些选项。例如:

void *
mmap(void *addr, size_t len, int prot, int flags, int fildes, off_t offset);

有6个论点，每一个都是必不可少的。此外，它们之间没有共同的联系来证明捆绑销售是合理的。也许你可以定义“struct mapargs”，但那更糟糕。