Requirements analysis, specification, design, and documentation will almost never fit into a "template." You are 100% of the time better off by starting with a blank document and beginning to type with a view of "I will explain this in such a way that if I were dead and someone else read this document, they would know everything that I know and see and understand now" and then organizing from there, letting section headings and such develop naturally and fit the task you are specifying, rather than being constrained to some business or school's idea of what your document should look like. If you have to do a diagram, rather than using somebody's formal and incomprehensible system, you're often better off just drawing a diagram that makes sense, with a clear legend, which actually specifies the system you are trying to specify and communicates the information that the developer on the other end (often you, after a few years) needs to receive.

[如果有必要，一旦您编写了真正的文档，您通常可以把它塞进组织强加给您的任何模板中。不过，你可能会发现自己不得不添加章节标题和重复的材料。

The only time templates for these kinds of documents make sense is when you have a large number of tasks which are very similar in nature, differing only in details. "Write a program to allow single-use remote login access through this modem bank, driving the terminal connection nexus with C-Kermit," "Produce a historical trend and forecast report for capacity usage," "Use this library to give all reports the ability to be faxed," "Fix this code for the year 2000 problem," and "Add database triggers to this table to populate a software product provided for us by a third-party vendor" can not all be described by the same template, no matter what people may think. And for the record, the requirements and design diagramming techniques that my college classes attempted to teach me and my classmates could not be used to specify a simple calculator program (and everyone knew it).

一个优秀的开发人员需要知道的不仅仅是如何编码

手动停止程序是一种有效的、经过验证的查找性能问题的方法。

可信吗?对大多数人来说并非如此。真的吗?绝对的。

程序员的判断比必要的要多得多。

看看这些帖子中所有被认为是“邪恶”或“可怕”的事情吧。

程序员喜欢数据结构。

见证所有关于类、继承、私有与公共、内存管理等以及如何分析需求的讨论。

尽可能在任何地方使用类型推断。

编辑:

这是我几个月前写的一篇关于我为什么有这种感觉的博客文章的链接。

http://blogs.msdn.com/jaredpar/archive/2008/09/09/when-to-use-type-inference.aspx

c++是有史以来最糟糕的编程语言之一。

它具有委员会设计的所有特征——它不能很好地完成任何给定的工作，而且某些工作(如面向对象)做得很糟糕。它有一种“厨房水槽”的绝望，不会消失。

它是学习编程的可怕的“第一语言”。你(从语言中)得不到优雅，得不到帮助。取而代之的是陷阱和雷区(内存管理、模板等)。

它不是一种学习面向对象概念的好语言。它表现为“带有类包装器的C”，而不是一种合适的OO语言。

我可以继续讲下去，但现在就讲到这里。我从来不喜欢用c++编程，虽然我是在FORTRAN上“磨砺”的，但我完全喜欢用C编程。我仍然认为C是最伟大的“经典”语言之一。在我看来，c++肯定不是这样的。

欢呼,

-R

EDIT: To respond to the comments on teaching C++. You can teach C++ in two ways - either teaching it as C "on steroids" (start with variables, conditions, loops, etc), or teaching it as a pure "OO" language (start with classes, methods, etc). You can find teaching texts that use one or other of these approaches. I prefer the latter approach (OO first) as it does emphasize the capabilities of C++ as an OO language (which was the original design emphasis of C++). If you want to teach C++ "as C", then I think you should teach C, not C++.

但就我的经验而言，c++作为第一语言的问题在于，这门语言太大了，无法在一个学期内教授，而且大多数“介绍”文本试图涵盖所有内容。在“第一语言”课程中涵盖所有主题是不可能的。在我看来，你至少要把它分成两个学期，然后它就不再是“第一语言”了。

我确实教c++，但只是作为一种“新语言”——也就是说，你必须精通一些先前的“纯”语言(不是脚本或宏)，然后才能注册这门课程。在我看来，c++是一种很好的“第二语言”。

-R

另一个编辑:(对康拉德)

I do not at all agree that C++ "is superior in every way" to C. I spent years coding C programs for microcontrollers and other embedded applications. The C compilers for these devices are highly optimized, often producing code as good as hand-coded assembler. When you move to C++, you gain a tremendous overhead imposed by the compiler in order to manage language features you may not use. In embedded applications, you gain little by adding classes and such, IMO. What you need is tight, clean code. You can write it in C++, but then you're really just writing C, and the C compilers are more optimized in these applications.

I wrote a MIDI engine, first in C, later in C++ (at the vendor's request) for an embedded controller (sound card). In the end, to meet the performance requirements (MIDI timings, etc) we had to revert to pure C for all of the core code. We were able to use C++ for the high-level code, and having classes was very sweet - but we needed C to get the performance at the lower level. The C code was an order of magnitude faster than the C++ code, but hand coded assembler was only slightly faster than the compiled C code. This was back in the early 1990s, just to place the events properly.

-R

源代码控制:除了SourceSafe

另外:排他锁定是邪恶的。

我曾经在某个地方工作过，他们认为排他锁意味着您可以保证当您签入时，人们不会覆盖其他人的更改。问题在于，为了完成任何工作，如果文件被锁定，开发人员只会在有机会时将本地文件更改为可写，并合并(或覆盖)版本的源代码控制。