Forth的控制结构有些奇怪。首先，因为它是一种反向波兰符号语言，条件在IF之前，如:

x 0 = IF

现在，要关闭条件块，使用关键字THEN:

x 0 = IF ." Equals zero!" THEN

现在真正的WTF开始了。IF所做的是编译一个有条件的前向跳转，并将跳转偏移量的地址放在堆栈上。当找到THEN时，它从堆栈中弹出该地址，计算实际偏移量，然后编译它。另一方面，ELSE编译一个条件向前跳转，从堆栈中弹出一个地址，将一个新地址压入堆栈，计算弹出地址的偏移量，然后编译该偏移量。这意味着语法是这样的:

x 0 = IF ." Equals zero!" ELSE ." Not equal to zero!" THEN

第一个和第二个语句是这样编译的:

x LITERAL 0 = (0BRANCH) LITERAL offset SLITERAL" Equals zero!" (DOTQ)
x LITERAL 0 = (0BRANCH) LITERAL offset SLITERAL" Equals zero!" (DOTQ) BRANCH LITERAL offset SLITERAL" Not equal to zero!" (DOTQ)

更奇怪的是，这种行为并不隐藏。它是该语言的ANSI规范的一部分，可以通过构造自定义流控制结构或以有趣的方式组合它们来自由利用。例如，Forth的WHILE循环:

BEGIN x 10 < WHILE x 1+ to x REPEAT

BEGIN和WHILE之间的部分是任意代码，因此实际上可以在单个控制结构中让代码在条件测试之前和之后执行。这是故意的，但下面的内容虽然是允许的，但却不允许:

BEGIN DUP 2 > WHILE DUP 5 < WHILE DUP 1+ REPEAT 123 ELSE 345 THEN 

它利用了每个控制流字的工作方式来组合两个WHILE语句，并为每个出口添加不同的后循环代码来引导。为了表明我不是在开玩笑，我只是从互联网上的一个代码中复制了这个小片段，并进行了一些小的修改来简化它。

很久以前，我曾经用BUT子句构建过一种语言。

Perl的sub没有真正的参数列表，只有@_数组。同时，sub会自动变平传入的参数。

我不明白为什么这是一个持久的功能;这反映了几年前我不得不在TI-86 BASIC上做的事情，因为这门语言没有足够的特色。

APL(除了ALL)，在一行中编写任何程序的能力。

例:在APL中，康威的生命游戏一行:

替代文本 http://catpad.net/michael/APLLife.gif

如果这句台词都不是WTF，那什么都不是!

这是一个视频

Duff的C语言设备!

在C语言中，可以将do/while语句与switch语句交错使用。下面是memcpy使用此方法的示例:

void duff_memcpy( char* to, char* from, size_t count ) {
    size_t n = (count+7)/8;
    switch( count%8 ) {
    case 0: do{ *to++ = *from++;
    case 7:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 6:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 5:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 4:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 3:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 2:     *to++ = *from++;
    case 1:     *to++ = *from++;
            }while(--n>0);
    }
}

Haskell's use of Maybe and Just. Maybe a is a type constructor that returns a type of Just a, but Maybe Int won't accept just an Int, it requires it to be a Just Int or Nothing. So in essence in haskell parlance Just Int is about as much of an Int as an apple is an orange. The only connection is that Just 5 returns a type of Maybe Interger, which can be constructed with the function Just and an Integer argument. This makes sense but is about as hard to explain as it can theoretically be, which is the purpose of haskell right? So is Just really JustKindaLikeButNotAtAll yea sorta, and is Maybe really a KindaLooksLikeOrIsNothing, yea sorta again.

-- Create a function that returns a Maybe Int, and return a 5, which know is definitly Int'able
>  let x :: Maybe Int; x = 5;
<interactive>:1:24:
    No instance for (Num (Maybe Int))
      arising from the literal `5' at <interactive>:1:24
    Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Num (Maybe Int))
    In the expression: 5
    In the definition of `x': x = 5

>  Just 5  
Just 5
it :: Maybe Integer

    -- Create a function x which takes an Int
>  let x :: Int -> Int; x _ = 0;
x :: Int -> Int
-- Try to give it a Just Int
>  x $ Just 5                   

<interactive>:1:4:
    Couldn't match expected type `Int' against inferred type `Maybe t'
    In the second argument of `($)', namely `Just 5'
    In the expression: x $ Just 5
    In the definition of `it': it = x $ Just 5

祝你好运读到这篇文章，我希望它是正确的。