JavaScript八进制转换“特性”是一个很好的了解:

parseInt('06') // 6
parseInt('07') // 7
parseInt('08') // 0
parseInt('09') // 0
parseInt('10') // 10

详情请点击这里。

在PHP中，如下:

<?php $foo = 'abc'; echo "{$foo";

是语法错误。

如果你真的想要{，后面跟着$foo的内容，你必须使用。:

<?php $foo = 'abc'; echo '{' . $foo;

我一直想知道这个函数在Java Core库的Math类中的用途:

static double expm1(double x);  // Returns e^x - 1.

C的多个名称空间:

typedef int i;

void foo()
{
    struct i {i i;} i;
    i: i.i = 3;
    printf( "%i\n", i.i);
}

或与字符:

typedef char c;

void foo()
{
    struct c {c c;} c;
    c: c.c = 'c';
    printf( "%c\n", c.c);
}

Processing (processing.org)是一种基于Java的语言。简单来说，处理编译器是将特定于处理的语法转换为Java的Java预处理器。

由于语言的设计，它有一些惊喜:

Processing的类被编译成Java内部类，这会引起一些麻烦，比如私有变量并不是真正私有的

class Foo {
  private int var = 0; // compiles fine
}

void setup() {
  Foo f = new Foo();
  print(f.var); // but does not causes compile error
}

同样缺少draw()函数会导致事件处理程序不被调用:

// void draw() {} // if you forgot to include this
void mousePressed() {
  print("this is never called");
}

在fortran中(当然是77，可能在95中也是如此)，未声明的变量和以I到N开头的参数(“In”组)将是INTEGER，所有其他未声明的变量和参数将是REAL(源)。这与“在某些情况下可选的空白”相结合，导致了最著名的错误之一。

正如弗雷德·韦伯在1990年的《另类民间传说:计算机》一书中所说:

I worked at Nasa during the summer of 1963. The group I was working in was doing preliminary work on the Mission Control Center computer systems and programs. My office mate had the job of testing out an orbit computation program which had been used during the Mercury flights. Running some test data with known answers through it, he was getting answers that were close, but not accurate enough. So, he started looking for numerical problems in the algorithm, checking to make sure his tests data was really correct, etc. After a couple of weeks with no results, he came across a DO statement, in the form: DO 10 I=1.10 This statement was interpreted by the compiler (correctly) as: DO10I = 1.10 The programmer had clearly intended: DO 10 I = 1, 10 After changing the . to a , the program results were correct to the desired accuracy. Apparently, the program's answers had been "good enough" for the sub-orbital Mercury flights, so no one suspected a bug until they tried to get greater accuracy, in anticipation of later orbital and moon flights. As far as I know, this particular bug was never blamed for any actual failure of a space flight, but the other details here seem close enough that I'm sure this incident is the source of the DO story.

我认为这是一个很大的WTF，如果DO10I被作为DO10I，并且反过来，因为隐式声明被认为是类型REAL。这是个很棒的故事。