这绝对是主观的，但我想尽量避免它变成争论。我认为如果人们恰当地对待它，这将是一个有趣的问题。
这个问题的想法来自于我对“你最讨厌的语言的哪五件事?”问题的回答。我认为c#中的类在默认情况下应该是密封的——我不会把我的理由放在这个问题上，但我可能会写一个更完整的解释来回答这个问题。我对评论中的讨论热度感到惊讶(目前有25条评论)。
那么，你有什么有争议的观点?我宁愿避免那些基于相对较少的基础而导致相当宗教的事情(例如，大括号放置)，但例如可能包括“单元测试实际上并没有多大帮助”或“公共字段确实是可以的”之类的事情。重要的是(至少对我来说)你的观点背后是有理由的。
请提出你的观点和理由——我鼓励人们投票给那些有充分论证和有趣的观点，不管你是否恰好同意这些观点。
当前回答
通过断章取义地编写伟大的程序，以狂热者的热情和错误的假设，这些都是铁定的规则，这真的让我很恼火。例如，“过早的优化是万恶之源”。
在我看来，许多技术问题和解决方案都是非常上下文敏感的，全球最佳实践的概念是一个谬论。
其他回答
意见:在开发领域的持续时间并不总是等同于经验。
许多行业看重一门语言的“多年经验”。是的，5年的c#学习是有意义的，因为你可能会学到新的技巧。然而，如果你在公司工作并维护相同的代码库很多年，我觉得作为一个在不同情况和客户需求下工作的人，你似乎没有获得足够的接触不同情况的机会。
I once interviewed a person who prided himself on having 10 years of programming experience and worked with VB5, 6, and VB.Net...all in the same company during that time. After more probing, I found out that while he worked with all of those versions of VB, he was only upgrading and constantly maintaining his original VB5 app. Never modified the architecture and let the upgrade wizards do their thing. I have interviewed people who only have 2 years in the field but have worked on multiple projects that have more "experience" than him.
一个文件一个类
谁在乎呢?我更喜欢把整个程序包含在一个文件中，而不是一百万个不同的文件。
在编程中使用的进程越多，代码就会变得越糟糕
I have noticed something in my 8 or so years of programming, and it seems ridiculous. It's that the only way to get quality is to employ quality developers, and remove as much process and formality from them as you can. Unit testing, coding standards, code/peer reviews, etc only reduce quality, not increase it. It sounds crazy, because the opposite should be true (more unit testing should lead to better code, great coding standards should lead to more readable code, code reviews should improve the quality of code) but it's not.
我认为这可以归结为我们称之为“软件工程”的事实，而实际上它是设计而不是工程。
以下数字可以证实这一说法:
From the Editor IEEE Software, November/December 2001 Quantifying Soft Factors by Steve McConnell ... Limited Importance of Process Maturity ... In comparing medium-size projects (100,000 lines of code), the one with the worst process will require 1.43 times as much effort as the one with the best process, all other things being equal. In other words, the maximum influence of process maturity on a project’s productivity is 1.43. ... ... What Clark doesn’t emphasize is that for a program of 100,000 lines of code, several human-oriented factors influence productivity more than process does. ... ... The seniority-oriented factors alone (AEXP, LTEX, PEXP) exert an influence of 3.02. The seven personnel-oriented factors collectively (ACAP, AEXP, LTEX, PCAP, PCON, PEXP, and SITE §) exert a staggering influence range of 25.8! This simple fact accounts for much of the reason that non-process-oriented organizations such as Microsoft, Amazon.com, and other entrepreneurial powerhouses can experience industry-leading productivity while seemingly shortchanging process. ... The Bottom Line ... It turns out that trading process sophistication for staff continuity, business domain experience, private offices, and other human-oriented factors is a sound economic tradeoff. Of course, the best organizations achieve high motivation and process sophistication at the same time, and that is the key challenge for any leading software organization.
请阅读文章，了解这些首字母缩写词的解释。
聪明的程序员很危险
我花了更多的时间试图修复“聪明”程序员编写的代码。我宁愿有一个优秀的程序员，而不是一个特别聪明的程序员，他想通过编写只有他(或她)才能解释的代码来证明自己有多聪明。
生成的文档几乎总是毫无价值的。
或者，作为一个推论:您的API需要为维护者和用户提供单独的文档集。
实际上有两类人需要了解您的API:维护者，他们必须了解您的实现的细节，以便有效地完成工作;用户，他们需要高级的概述、示例和关于他们所访问的每个方法的效果的详细细节。
我从未遇到过在这两个方面都成功的生成文档。通常，当程序员为工具编写注释以提取和生成文档时，他们的目标是介于两者之间的某个地方——刚刚足够的实现细节让用户感到厌烦和困惑，但不足以显著帮助维护者，并且没有足够的概述对用户有任何真正的帮助。
As a maintainer, I'd always rather have clean, clear comments, unmuddled by whatever strange markup your auto-doc tool requires, that tell me why you wrote that weird switch statement the way you did, or what bug this seemingly-redundant parameter check fixes, or whatever else I need to know to actually keep the code clean and bug-free as I work on it. I want this information right there in the code, adjacent to the code it's about, so I don't have to hunt down your website to find it in a state that lends itself to being read.
As a user, I'd always rather have a thorough, well-organized document (a set of web pages would be ideal, but I'd settle for a well-structured text file, too) telling me how your API is architectured, what methods do what, and how I can accomplish what I want to use your API to do. I don't want to see internally what classes you wrote to allow me to do work, or files they're in for that matter. And I certainly don't want to have to download your source so I can figure out exactly what's going on behind the curtain. If your documentation were good enough, I wouldn't have to.
无论如何，这就是我的看法。
