这绝对是主观的,但我想尽量避免它变成争论。我认为如果人们恰当地对待它,这将是一个有趣的问题。

这个问题的想法来自于我对“你最讨厌的语言的哪五件事?”问题的回答。我认为c#中的类在默认情况下应该是密封的——我不会把我的理由放在这个问题上,但我可能会写一个更完整的解释来回答这个问题。我对评论中的讨论热度感到惊讶(目前有25条评论)。

那么,你有什么有争议的观点?我宁愿避免那些基于相对较少的基础而导致相当宗教的事情(例如,大括号放置),但例如可能包括“单元测试实际上并没有多大帮助”或“公共字段确实是可以的”之类的事情。重要的是(至少对我来说)你的观点背后是有理由的。

请提出你的观点和理由——我鼓励人们投票给那些有充分论证和有趣的观点,不管你是否恰好同意这些观点。


当前回答

当许多新技术出现时,我对它们的了解只够决定我现在是否需要它们。

如果没有,我就把它们放在一边,直到“早期采用者”把粗糙的边缘去掉,然后每隔几个月/几年再检查一次。

其他回答

大多数专业程序员都很糟糕

我遇到过太多为了谋生而做这份工作的人,他们对自己所做的事情很糟糕。蹩脚的代码,糟糕的沟通技巧,对新技术毫无兴趣。太多太多了……

信不信由你,我认为在面向对象语言中,操作类数据的大部分(业务逻辑)代码应该在类本身中,这在我的团队中是异端。

根据我得到的大量反馈,我最具争议的观点显然是,程序员并不总是读他们声称读过的书。这紧跟着我的观点,一个受过正规教育的程序员比一个自学成才的程序员更好(但不一定比另一个自学成才的程序员更好)。

女性比男性更适合做程序员。

与我共事过的女性程序员不像男性那样拘谨于“她们的”代码。他们更容易接受批评和新想法。

您不应该停留在您发现的编写“有效”代码的第一种方法上。

I really don't think this should be controversial, but it is. People see an example from elsewhere in the code, from online, or from some old "Teach yourself Advanced Power SQLJava#BeansServer in 3.14159 minutes" book dated 1999, and they think they know something and they copy it into their code. They don't walk through the example to find out what each line does. They don't think about the design of their program and see if there might be a more organized or more natural way to do the same thing. They don't make any attempt at keeping their skill sets up to date to learn that they are using ideas and methods deprecated in the last year of the previous millenium. They don't seem to have the experience to learn that what they're copying has created specific horrific maintenance burdens for programmers for years and that they can be avoided with a little more thought.

事实上,他们似乎甚至没有意识到做一件事可能有不止一种方法。

I come from the Perl world, where one of the slogans is "There's More Than One Way To Do It." (TMTOWTDI) People who've taken a cursory look at Perl have written it off as "write-only" or "unreadable," largely because they've looked at crappy code written by people with the mindset I described above. Those people have given zero thought to design, maintainability, organization, reduction of duplication in code, coupling, cohesion, encapsulation, etc. They write crap. Those people exist programming in every language, and easy to learn languages with many ways to do things give them plenty of rope and guns to shoot and hang themselves with. Simultaneously.

But if you hang around the Perl world for longer than a cursory look, and watch what the long-timers in the community are doing, you see a remarkable thing: the good Perl programmers spend some time seeking to find the best way to do something. When they're naming a new module, they ask around for suggestions and bounce their ideas off of people. They hand their code out to get looked at, critiqued, and modified. If they have to do something nasty, they encapsulate it in the smallest way possible in a module for use in a more organized way. Several implementations of the same idea might hang around for awhile, but they compete for mindshare and marketshare, and they compete by trying to do the best job, and a big part of that is by making themselves easily maintainable. Really good Perl programmers seem to think hard about what they are doing and looking for the best way to do things, rather than just grabbing the first idea that flits through their brain.

如今,我主要在Java世界中编程。我见过一些非常好的Java代码,但我也见过很多垃圾代码,而且我还看到了更多我在开头描述的心态:人们选择了第一个看起来可以工作的丑陋代码块,而不理解它,也不考虑是否有更好的方法。

You will see both mindsets in every language. I'm not trying to impugn Java specifically. (Actually I really like it in some ways ... maybe that should be my real controversial opinion!) But I'm coming to believe that every programmer needs to spend a good couple of years with a TMTOWTDI-style language, because even though conventional wisdom has it that this leads to chaos and crappy code, it actually seems to produce people who understand that you need to think about the repercussions of what you are doing instead of trusting your language to have been designed to make you do the right thing with no effort.

我确实认为你可能会在另一个方向上走得太远:例如,完美主义完全忽略了你的真正需求和目标(通常是你的业务的真正需求和目标,通常是盈利能力)。但我不认为任何人都能成为一个真正伟大的程序员,除非学会投入一些高于平均水平的努力来思考寻找最好的(或至少是最好的一种)方法来编码他们正在做的事情。