不久前，当我在CS课上第一次发现C语言时，看到指针的行为方式是非常奇怪的。我们只是编写程序并猜测它会做什么，直到它们得到正确的行为

c#的默认继承模型赢得了我的投票:

public class Animal
{
    public string Speak() { return "unknown sound" ; }
}

public class Dog : Animal
{
    public string Speak() { return "Woof!" ; }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main( string[] args )
    {
        Dog aDog = new Dog() ;
        Animal anAnimal = (Animal) aDog ;

        Console.WriteLine( "Dog sez '{0}'" , aDog.Speak() ) ;
        Console.WriteLine( "Animal sez '{0}'" , anAnimal.Speak() ) ;

        return ;
    }
}

运行程序得到如下结果:

狗叫“汪!” 动物说“未知的声音”

获得这种行为应该要求程序员走出程序员的道路。子类实例不会因为被上转换为它的超类型而停止存在。相反，你必须显式地请求预期的(几乎总是想要的)结果:

public class Animal
{
    public virtual string Speak() { return "unknown sound" ; }
}

public class Dog : Animal
{
    public override string Speak() { return "Woof!" ; }
}

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.

我最讨厌的特性是任何包含条件逻辑的配置文件语法。这类事情在Java世界(Ant、Maven等)中非常普遍。你知道你是谁!)

你最终只能用c**p语言编程，调试和编辑器支持有限。

如果在配置中需要逻辑，那么用真正的语言编码配置的“Pythonic”方法会好得多。

我最喜欢的奇怪的C语言是5[“Hello World”]，但因为已经发布了，我最喜欢的第二个奇怪的是Windows版本结构初始化黑客:

void someWindowsFunction() {
    BITMAPINFOHEADER header = {sizeof header};

    /* do stuff with header */
}

这条微妙的线条达到了以下效果:

Declares a BITMAPINFOHEADER structure Concisely sets the "size" member of the structure, without hardcoding a size constant (since many Window structures, including BITMAPINFOHEADER, follow the convention of specifying the size of the structure as the first member} Declares the version of the structure (since many Windows structures, including BITMAPINFOHEADER, identify their version by the declared size, following the convention that structures definitions are append-only) Clears all other members of the structure (a C standard behavior when a structure is incompletely initialized).