他们可能也认为你的风格很糟糕。让团队一起讨论一套一致的编码风格指南。同意某事。这是否适合你的风格并不是问题，选择任何风格只要它是一致的才是重要的。

首先，我会注意不要太快下结论。有些代码很容易被认为是坏的，尽管可能有很好的理由(例如:使用带有奇怪约定的遗留代码)。但让我们暂时假设他们真的很糟糕。

你可以建议建立一个基于团队输入的编码标准。但是你真的需要考虑他们的意见，而不仅仅是强加你对好的代码应该是什么样子的看法。

另一种选择是把技术书籍带进办公室(《代码完成》、《有效的c++》、《实用的程序员》……)，并主动把它借给别人(“嘿，我用完了，有人想借吗?”)

我穿上长袍，打开一罐苏格拉底方法。

苏格拉底方法以古希腊哲学家苏格拉底的名字命名，是一种哲学探究的形式，提问者探究他人立场的含义，以激发理性思考和阐明思想。这种辩证方法经常涉及到一种对立的讨论，在这种讨论中，一种观点的辩护与另一种观点相对抗;一个参与者可能会导致另一个人在某种程度上自相矛盾，加强询问者自己的观点。

糟糕的命名习惯:总是不可原谅的。

是的，不要总是认为你的方式更好……这可能很困难，但必须保持客观性。

I've had an experience with a coder that had such horrible naming of functions, the code was worse than unreadable. The functions lied about what they did, the code was nonsensical. And they were protective/resistant to having someone else change their code. when confronted very politely, they admitted it was poorly named, but wanted to retain their ownership of the code and would go back and fix it up "at a later date." This is in the past now, but how do you deal with a situation where they error is ACKNOWLEDGED, but then protected? This went on for a long time and I had no idea how to break through that barrier.

Global variables: I myself am not THAT fond of global variables, but I know a few otherwise excellent programmers that like them A LOT. So much so that I've come to believe they are not actually all that bad in many situations, as they allow for clarity, ease of debugging. (please don't flame/downvote me :) ) It comes down to, I've seen a lot of very good, effective, bug free code that used global variables (not put in by me!) and great deal of buggy, impossible to read/maintain/fix code that meticulously used proper patterns. Maybe there IS a place (though shrinking perhaps) for global variables? I'm considering rethinking my position based on evidence.

他们可能也认为你的风格很糟糕。让团队一起讨论一套一致的编码风格指南。同意某事。这是否适合你的风格并不是问题，选择任何风格只要它是一致的才是重要的。

介绍代码标准的思想。关于代码标准最重要的事情是它提出了代码库的一致性(理想情况下，所有的代码都应该看起来像由一个人一次编写的)，这将导致更容易理解和可维护的代码。