Java泛型 都是WTF:

List<String> ls = new ArrayList<String>(); //1
List<Object> lo = ls; //2

2:是非法的(??)这是令人费解的，但你必须想想接下来会发生什么:

lo.add(new Object());
String s = ls.get(0);

我们将对象赋值给字符串引用，哦不!就像这样，他们周围有很多陷阱。

大约在1977年，我在Lisp中添加了“format”函数，那时“printf”甚至还不存在(我是从与Unix相同的源:Multics复制的)。它一开始很无辜，但后来被一个接一个的特征填满了。当Guy Steele引入迭代和相关特性时，事情就失控了，这些特性被Common Lisp X3J13 ANSI标准所接受。下面的示例可以在Common Lisp The Language, 2nd Edition第22.3.3节中的表22-8中找到:

(defun print-xapping (xapping stream depth)
  (declare (ignore depth))
  (format stream
      "~:[{~;[~]~:{~S~:[->~S~;~*~]~:^ ~}~:[~; ~]~ ~{~S->~^ ~}~:[~; ~]~[~*~;->~S~;->~*~]~:[}~;]~]"
      (xectorp xapping)
      (do ((vp (xectorp xapping))
           (sp (finite-part-is-xetp xapping))
           (d (xapping-domain xapping) (cdr d))
           (r (xapping-range xapping) (cdr r))
           (z '() (cons (list (if vp (car r) (car d)) (or vp sp) (car r)) z)))
          ((null d) (reverse z)))
      (and (xapping-domain xapping)
           (or (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping)))
      (xapping-exceptions xapping)
      (and (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping))
      (ecase (xapping-infinite xapping)
        ((nil) 0)
        (:constant 1)
        (:universal 2))
      (xapping-default xapping)
      (xectorp xapping)))

在c++中，你可以做:

std::string my_str;
std::string my_str_concat = my_str + "foo";

但你不能:

std::string my_str_concat = "foo" + my_str;

操作符重载通常服从WTF。

我很惊讶居然没有人提到Visual Basic的7个循环结构。

For i As Integer = 1 to 10 ... Next
While True ... End While
Do While True ... Loop
Do Until True ... Loop
Do ... Loop While True
Do ... Loop Until True
While True ... Wend

因为粘!你面前的条件实在是太复杂了!

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。

我一直在想为什么最简单的程序是:

class HelloWorldApp {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!");
    }
}

然而它可以是:

print "Hello World!"

也许这是为了吓唬计算机科学专业的学生……