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。

总是要求单一的返回类型是没有意义的。我认为这更像是一个标志，表明某些东西可能需要简化。有时有多个回报是必要的，但通常你可以通过至少尝试有一个退出点来简化事情。

作为嵌套if的替代方法，有一种使用do/while(false)在任何地方爆发的方法:

    function()
    {
        HRESULT error = S_OK;

        do
        {
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
            {
                error = OPERATION1FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
            {
                error = OPERATION2FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
                break;
            }
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
            {
                error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                break;
            }
        } while (false);

        return error;
    }

这为您提供了一个出口点，允许您进行其他嵌套操作，但仍然不是真正的深层结构。如果你不喜欢成功，你可以做任何失败的事情。这类事情还允许您在任意两个其他检查之间添加其他代码，而无需重新缩进任何内容。

如果你真的疯了，整个If块也可以宏化。: D

    #define BREAKIFFAILED(x,y) if (!SUCCEEDED((x))) { error = (Y); break; }

    do
    {
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation1(), OPERATION1FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation2(), OPERATION2FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation3(), OPERATION3FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation4(), OPERATION4FAILED)
    } while (false);

Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

唯一重要的问题是“如何使代码更简单、更易读、更容易理解?”如果使用多个返回会更简单，那么就使用它们。

我能想到的一个很好的理由是代码维护:您有一个单一的退出点。如果你想改变结果的格式，…，它的实现要简单得多。此外，为了调试，你可以在那里插入一个断点:)

话虽如此，我曾经不得不在一个库中工作，那里的编码标准强制要求“每个函数一个返回语句”，我发现这相当困难。我写了很多数值计算代码，经常有“特殊情况”，所以代码最终很难跟上……