删除类。 . net Framework中隐式处理异常的类的数量(类的方法)。和一个哑巴共事是很困难的。

我真的不喜欢当人们告诉我使用getter和setter而不是使变量公共时，你应该能够获得和设置类变量。

我完全同意如果是改变对象中的一个变量在你的对象中，你不会得到这样的东西:a.b.c.d.e = something;但我更愿意使用:a.x = something;然后a.setX(东西);我认为a.x =某物;实际上，在同一个例子中，它们都更容易阅读，而且比设置/获取更漂亮。

我不明白为什么要这样做:

void setX(T x) ｛ 这个->x = x; ｝

T getX () ｛ 返回x; ｝

这就需要更多的代码，需要更多的时间，你要一遍又一遍地做，这只会让代码更难阅读。

顾客并不总是对的。

在我处理的大多数情况下，客户是产品所有者，也就是“企业”。通常情况下，开发人员只是编写代码，而不试图在产品中提供既定的利益。人们有太多的误解，认为IT部门是“公司中的公司”，这完全是一堆垃圾。

I feel my role is that of helping the business express their ideas - with the mutual understanding that I take an interest in understanding the business so that I can provide the best experience possible. And that route implies that there will be times that the product owner asks for something that he/she feels is the next revolution in computing leaving someone to either agree with that fact, or explain the more likely reason of why no one does something a certain way. It is mutually beneficial, because the product owner understands the thought that goes into the product, and the development team understands that they do more than sling code.

这实际上已经开始引导我们走上提高生产力的道路。如何?由于双方的分歧已经改善了沟通，我们更有可能在过程中更早地走到一起，并就产品定义达成一个互利的解决方案。

您不应该停留在您发现的编写“有效”代码的第一种方法上。

I really don't think this should be controversial, but it is. People see an example from elsewhere in the code, from online, or from some old "Teach yourself Advanced Power SQLJava#BeansServer in 3.14159 minutes" book dated 1999, and they think they know something and they copy it into their code. They don't walk through the example to find out what each line does. They don't think about the design of their program and see if there might be a more organized or more natural way to do the same thing. They don't make any attempt at keeping their skill sets up to date to learn that they are using ideas and methods deprecated in the last year of the previous millenium. They don't seem to have the experience to learn that what they're copying has created specific horrific maintenance burdens for programmers for years and that they can be avoided with a little more thought.

事实上，他们似乎甚至没有意识到做一件事可能有不止一种方法。

I come from the Perl world, where one of the slogans is "There's More Than One Way To Do It." (TMTOWTDI) People who've taken a cursory look at Perl have written it off as "write-only" or "unreadable," largely because they've looked at crappy code written by people with the mindset I described above. Those people have given zero thought to design, maintainability, organization, reduction of duplication in code, coupling, cohesion, encapsulation, etc. They write crap. Those people exist programming in every language, and easy to learn languages with many ways to do things give them plenty of rope and guns to shoot and hang themselves with. Simultaneously.

But if you hang around the Perl world for longer than a cursory look, and watch what the long-timers in the community are doing, you see a remarkable thing: the good Perl programmers spend some time seeking to find the best way to do something. When they're naming a new module, they ask around for suggestions and bounce their ideas off of people. They hand their code out to get looked at, critiqued, and modified. If they have to do something nasty, they encapsulate it in the smallest way possible in a module for use in a more organized way. Several implementations of the same idea might hang around for awhile, but they compete for mindshare and marketshare, and they compete by trying to do the best job, and a big part of that is by making themselves easily maintainable. Really good Perl programmers seem to think hard about what they are doing and looking for the best way to do things, rather than just grabbing the first idea that flits through their brain.

如今，我主要在Java世界中编程。我见过一些非常好的Java代码，但我也见过很多垃圾代码，而且我还看到了更多我在开头描述的心态:人们选择了第一个看起来可以工作的丑陋代码块，而不理解它，也不考虑是否有更好的方法。

You will see both mindsets in every language. I'm not trying to impugn Java specifically. (Actually I really like it in some ways ... maybe that should be my real controversial opinion!) But I'm coming to believe that every programmer needs to spend a good couple of years with a TMTOWTDI-style language, because even though conventional wisdom has it that this leads to chaos and crappy code, it actually seems to produce people who understand that you need to think about the repercussions of what you are doing instead of trusting your language to have been designed to make you do the right thing with no effort.

我确实认为你可能会在另一个方向上走得太远:例如，完美主义完全忽略了你的真正需求和目标(通常是你的业务的真正需求和目标，通常是盈利能力)。但我不认为任何人都能成为一个真正伟大的程序员，除非学会投入一些高于平均水平的努力来思考寻找最好的(或至少是最好的一种)方法来编码他们正在做的事情。

1)商业应用程序闹剧:

我认为整个“企业”框架都是烟雾和镜子。J2EE、。net、大多数Apache框架和大多数用于管理这类事情的抽象所产生的复杂性远远大于它们所解决的问题。

以任何常规的Java或。net ORM，或任何所谓的现代MVC框架为例，它们都能“神奇”地解决乏味而简单的任务。您最终会编写大量难看的XML样板文件，难以快速验证和编写。你有大量的api，其中一半只是为了集成其他api的工作，不可能回收的接口，以及只需要克服Java和c#的灵活性的抽象类。我们根本不需要那么多。

那些拥有自己的描述符语法、过于复杂的数据库和群件产品的不同应用程序服务器呢?

这里的重点不是复杂性==坏，而是不必要的复杂性==坏。我曾经在大型企业安装中工作过，其中一些是必要的，但即使在大多数情况下，一些自制脚本和一个简单的web前端也足以解决大多数用例。

我会尝试用简单的web框架、开源数据库和简单的编程结构来取代所有这些企业级应用。

2) n年工作经验要求:

Unless you need a consultant or a technician to handle a specific issue related to an application, API or framework, then you don't really need someone with 5 years of experience in that application. What you need is a developer/admin who can read documentation, who has domain knowledge in whatever it is you're doing, and who can learn quickly. If you need to develop in some kind of language, a decent developer will pick it up in less than 2 months. If you need an administrator for X web server, in two days he should have read the man pages and newsgroups and be up to speed. Anything less and that person is not worth what he is paid.

3)常见的“计算机科学”学位课程:

The majority of computer science and software engineering degrees are bull. If your first programming language is Java or C#, then you're doing something wrong. If you don't get several courses full of algebra and math, it's wrong. If you don't delve into functional programming, it's incomplete. If you can't apply loop invariants to a trivial for loop, you're not worth your salt as a supposed computer scientist. If you come out with experience in x and y languages and object orientation, it's full of s***. A real computer scientist sees a language in terms of the concepts and syntaxes it uses, and sees programming methodologies as one among many, and has such a good understanding of the underlying philosophies of both that picking new languages, design methods, or specification languages should be trivial.

Requirements analysis, specification, design, and documentation will almost never fit into a "template." You are 100% of the time better off by starting with a blank document and beginning to type with a view of "I will explain this in such a way that if I were dead and someone else read this document, they would know everything that I know and see and understand now" and then organizing from there, letting section headings and such develop naturally and fit the task you are specifying, rather than being constrained to some business or school's idea of what your document should look like. If you have to do a diagram, rather than using somebody's formal and incomprehensible system, you're often better off just drawing a diagram that makes sense, with a clear legend, which actually specifies the system you are trying to specify and communicates the information that the developer on the other end (often you, after a few years) needs to receive.

[如果有必要，一旦您编写了真正的文档，您通常可以把它塞进组织强加给您的任何模板中。不过，你可能会发现自己不得不添加章节标题和重复的材料。

The only time templates for these kinds of documents make sense is when you have a large number of tasks which are very similar in nature, differing only in details. "Write a program to allow single-use remote login access through this modem bank, driving the terminal connection nexus with C-Kermit," "Produce a historical trend and forecast report for capacity usage," "Use this library to give all reports the ability to be faxed," "Fix this code for the year 2000 problem," and "Add database triggers to this table to populate a software product provided for us by a third-party vendor" can not all be described by the same template, no matter what people may think. And for the record, the requirements and design diagramming techniques that my college classes attempted to teach me and my classmates could not be used to specify a simple calculator program (and everyone knew it).