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
当我声称代码只是我的设计的一种表达时，我经常被人大声叫嚷。我非常不喜欢看到许多开发人员在编写代码时“匆匆忙忙”地设计系统。
当其中一个牛仔从马上摔下来时所浪费的时间和精力是惊人的，而且他们遇到的问题十有八九只要前期设计工作就能解决。
我觉得现代方法没有强调设计在整个软件开发过程中的重要性。例如，当你甚至还没有审查你的设计时，对代码审查的重要性!这是疯狂。
其他回答
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。
Jon Bentley的《Programming Pearls》不再是一本有用的大部头。
http://tinyurl.com/nom56r
如果你没有读过手册页，你就不是一个真正的程序员。
我们是软件开发人员，不是C/ c# / c++ /PHP/Perl/Python/Java/…开发人员。
After you've been exposed to a few languages, picking up a new one and being productive with it is a small task. That is to say that you shouldn't be afraid of new languages. Of course, there is a large difference between being productive and mastering a language. But, that's no reason to shy away from a language you've never seen. It bugs me when people say, "I'm a PHP developer." or when a job offer says, "Java developer". After a few years experience of being a developer, new languages and APIs really shouldn't be intimidating and going from never seeing a language to being productive with it shouldn't take very long at all. I know this is controversial but it's my opinion.
引用已故的E. W. Dijsktra的话:
编程是应用数学中最难的分支之一;贫穷的数学家最好还是做纯粹的数学家。
计算机科学与计算机无关，就像天文学与望远镜无关一样。
我不明白一个人怎么能声称自己是一个合格的程序员，却不能解决像这个这样非常简单的数学问题。可能是一个CRUD猴子，但不是一个程序员。
