Well, maybe I'm one of the few people here old enough to remember one of the big reasons why "only one return statement" was pushed so hard. It's so the compiler can emit more efficient code. For each function call, the compiler typically pushes some registers on the stack to preserve their values. This way, the function can use those registers for temporary storage. When the function returns, those saved registers have to be popped off the stack and back into the registers. That's one POP (or MOV -(SP),Rn) instruction per register. If you have a bunch of return statements, then either each one has to pop all the registers (which makes the compiled code bigger) or the compiler has to keep track of which registers might have been modified and only pop those (decreasing code size, but increasing compilation time).

今天仍然坚持使用一个return语句的一个原因是易于自动重构。如果您的IDE支持方法提取重构(选择一系列行并将它们转换为一个方法)，那么如果您想提取的行中有一个return语句，特别是如果您正在返回一个值，则很难做到这一点。

使用单一出口点可以降低圈复杂度，因此，从理论上讲，可以降低在修改代码时引入错误的可能性。然而，实践往往表明需要更务实的方法。因此，我倾向于只有一个出口点，但如果可读性更好，允许我的代码有多个出口点。

为了实现良好的标准和行业最佳实践，我们必须在所有函数中建立正确的返回语句数量。显然，人们一致反对使用一个return语句。所以我建议把它设为2。

如果每个人现在都能检查一下他们的代码，找到任何只有一个出口点的函数，并添加另一个出口点，我将不胜感激。在哪里不重要。

这一变化的结果无疑将是更少的bug，更大的可读性和难以想象的财富从天而降。

我通常的策略是在函数的末尾只有一个return语句，除非通过添加更多的return语句来大大降低代码的复杂性。事实上，我是Eiffel的粉丝，它通过没有return语句强制执行唯一的返回规则(只有一个自动创建的'result'变量来放入结果)。

当然，在某些情况下，有多个返回值的代码比没有返回值的代码更清晰。有人可能会说，如果一个函数太复杂，没有多个return语句就无法理解，那么就需要更多的返工，但有时对这种事情采取务实的态度是好的。

你知道有句谚语——情人眼里出西施。

有些人信得过NetBeans，有些人信得过IntelliJ IDEA，有些人信得过Python，有些人信得过PHP。

在一些商店，如果你坚持这样做，你可能会丢掉工作:

public void hello()
{
   if (....)
   {
      ....
   }
}

这个问题完全是关于可见性和可维护性。

I am addicted to using boolean algebra to reduce and simplify logic and use of state machines. However, there were past colleagues who believed my employ of "mathematical techniques" in coding is unsuitable, because it would not be visible and maintainable. And that would be a bad practice. Sorry people, the techniques I employ is very visible and maintainable to me - because when I return to the code six months later, I would understand the code clearly rather seeing a mess of proverbial spaghetti.

嘿，伙计(就像一个前客户曾经说过的)，做你想做的，只要你知道如何在我需要你解决它的时候解决它。

I remember 20 years ago, a colleague of mine was fired for employing what today would be called agile development strategy. He had a meticulous incremental plan. But his manager was yelling at him "You can't incrementally release features to users! You must stick with the waterfall." His response to the manager was that incremental development would be more precise to customer's needs. He believed in developing for the customers needs, but the manager believed in coding to "customer's requirement".

我们经常因为打破数据规范化、MVP和MVC边界而感到内疚。我们内联而不是构造函数。我们走捷径。

就我个人而言，我认为PHP是一种糟糕的实践，但我又知道什么呢?所有的理论争论都归结为试图满足一套规则

质量=精度，可维护性 和盈利能力。

所有其他规则都退居幕后。当然，这条规则永远不会消失:

懒惰是一种美德 程序员。

我更喜欢一个return语句。一个尚未指出的原因是，一些重构工具在单点退出时工作得更好，例如Eclipse JDT提取/内联方法。