有趣的自动装箱和Java中的整数缓存:

Integer foo = 1000;
Integer bar = 1000;

foo <= bar; // true
foo >= bar; // true
foo == bar; // false

//However, if the values of foo and bar are between 127 and -128 (inclusive)
//the behaviour changes:

Integer foo = 42;
Integer bar = 42;

foo <= bar; // true
foo >= bar; // true
foo == bar; // true

解释

快速浏览一下Java源代码将会出现以下内容:

/**
 * Returns a <tt>Integer</tt> instance representing the specified
 * <tt>int</tt> value.
 * If a new <tt>Integer</tt> instance is not required, this method
 * should generally be used in preference to the constructor
 * {@link #Integer(int)}, as this method is likely to yield
 * significantly better space and time performance by caching
 * frequently requested values.
 *
 * @param  i an <code>int</code> value.
 * @return a <tt>Integer</tt> instance representing <tt>i</tt>.
 * @since  1.5
 */
public static Integer valueOf(int i) {
    if (i >= -128 && i <= IntegerCache.high)
        return IntegerCache.cache[i + 128];
    else
        return new Integer(i);
}

注意:IntegerCache。High默认为127，除非由属性设置。

自动装箱的情况是，foo和bar都是从缓存中检索到相同的整数对象，除非显式创建:例如，foo = new integer(42)，因此在比较引用是否相等时，它们将为真而不是假。比较Integer值的正确方法是使用.equals;

Java有一整本关于它们的书。

书http://www.javapuzzlers.com/lg-puzzlers-cropped.jpg

爪哇益智游戏

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

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。

这个古老的PHP宠儿本身并不完全是WTFish，但作用域解析错误是许多开发人员看到的事情之一，值得给一些WTF的爱:

$class = new StdClass();
$class::test();

PHP Parse error:  syntax error, unexpected T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM on line 3

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。