早期的FORTRAN，空格不重要。(anti-Python !)

DO 20 I = 1, 10

含义:从这里循环到第20行，I从1到10。

DO 20 I = 1. 10

含义:将1.10分配给名为DO20I的变量。

有传言说这个漏洞毁了一个太空探测器。

特点:Bash, Korn shell (ksh93)和Z shell都允许使用带或不带美元符号的变量下标数组:

array[index]=$value
array[$index]=$value

加上美元符号，会得到10000的期望值:

unset array
for i in {1..10000}
do
    ((array[$RANDOM%6+1]++))
done
unset total
for count in ${array[@]}
do
    ((total += count))
done
echo $total

陌陌性:如果你从RANDOM中移除美元符号，总数将随机变化，甚至大于10000。

类似地，这将产生3而不是2:

a=1; ((r[a++]++)); echo $a

你不能在这里用美元符号，因为这是赋值运算(a在lhs上)虽然你可以用间接的方法，但是双重求值还是会发生。

原因:对于美元符号，变量展开在算术求值之前执行，因此只执行一次。如果没有美元符号，它将执行两次，一次是计算查找的索引，另一次是计算赋值的索引(因此，实际上，循环中第一步的赋值可能看起来像array[4] = $array[6] + 1，这完全打乱了数组)。

我不敢说XML是一种编程语言，但它不是贴近我们的内心吗?: -)

在我看来，XML中最奇怪的特性是以下是一个格式良好的文档:

<_....>
</_....>

下面是允许连续点的NT-Name的词法定义。

在Common Lisp中，零维数组是很奇怪的，而且很自然地，它们具有读取语法。

? (aref #0A5)
5

交替:在许多语言中的事物之间交替:

boolean b = true;
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
  if(b = !b)
    print i;

乍一看，b怎么可能不等于它自己呢? 这实际上只会打印奇数

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。