My co-workers were/are producing supposedly bad code because they sucked/suck. It took me a while to learn that I should first check what really happened. Most of the times, bad code was caused by lack of management, customers who didn't want to check what they really wanted and started changing their minds like there's no tomorrow, or other circunstances out of anyone's control, like economic crysis. Customers demand "for yesterday" features because they are stupid: Not really. It's about communication. If someone tells them it everything can really be done in 1 week, guess what? they'll want it in 1 week. "Never change code that works". This is not a good thing IMO. You obviously don't have to change what's really working. However, if you never change a piece of code because it's supposedly working and it's too complex to change, you may end up finding out that code isn't really doing what it's supposed to do. Eg: I've seen a sales commission calculation software doing wrong calculations for two years because nobody wanted to maintain the software. Nobody at sales knew about it. The formula was so complex they didn't really know how to check the numbers.

每个人都想为一个问题写出最好的、最合适的代码……

人们知道他们想要什么。

在很长一段时间里，我以为我会和人们交谈，他们会描述一个问题或工作流程，我将其放入代码并自动化。结果每次发生这种情况，他们以为自己想要的并不是他们真正想要的。

Edit: I agree with most of the comments. This is not a technical answer and may not be what the questioner was looking for. It doesn't apply only to programming. I'm sure it's not my longest-held assumption either, but it was the most striking thing I've learned in the 10 short years I've been doing this. I'm sure it was pure naivete on my part but the way my brain is/was wired and the teaching and experiences I had prior to entering the business world led me to believe that I would be doing what I answered; that I would be able to use code and computers to fix people's problems.

我想这个答案类似于Robin关于非程序员理解/关心我所谈论的内容的回答。这是关于将业务作为一个敏捷的、迭代的、交互的过程来学习。它是关于学习编程猴子和软件开发人员之间的区别。这是关于意识到两者之间的区别，并且在该领域真正优秀，不仅仅是语法和输入速度。

编辑:这个答案现在是社区-wiki，以安抚人们对这个答案感到不安，给我代表。

在c++中，很长一段时间我都在想编译器在给纯虚方法定义时拒绝你。

当我意识到我错了时，我很吃惊。

很多次，当我告诉别人为其抽象类提供其纯虚析构函数的默认实现时，他/她都用大大的眼睛看着我。我知道接下来会有一场长时间的讨论……这似乎在c++初学者中是一个普遍的信念(我认为我自己也是如此)。我目前还在学习!)

Wikipedia链接到c++的纯虚拟方法

我的编程如果由我一个人来执行会更快更好。

一个函数/方法应该只有一个出口点。