我认为使用goto语句是很好的，如果你以一种理智的方式使用它们(以及一种理智的编程语言)。它们通常可以使您的代码更容易阅读，并且不会强迫您使用一些扭曲的逻辑来完成一件简单的事情。

源文件太20世纪了。

在函数/方法的主体中，将过程逻辑表示为线性文本是有意义的。即使逻辑不是严格的线性，我们也有良好的编程结构(循环、if语句等)，允许我们使用线性文本清晰地表示非线性操作。

But there is no reason that I should be required to divide my classes among distinct files or sort my functions/methods/fields/properties/etc in a particular order within those files. Why can't we just throw all those things within a big database file and let the IDE take care of sorting everything dynamically? If I want to sort my members by name then I'll click the member header on the members table. If I want to sort them by accessibility then I'll click the accessibility header. If I want to view my classes as an inheritence tree, then I'll click the button to do that.

Perhaps classes and members could be viewed spatially, as if they were some sort of entities within a virtual world. If the programmer desired, the IDE could automatically position classes & members that use each other near each other so that they're easy to find. Imaging being able to zoom in and out of this virtual world. Zoom all the way out and you can namespace galaxies with little class planets in them. Zoom in to a namespace and you can see class planets with method continents and islands and inner classes as orbitting moons. Zoom in to a method, and you see... the source code for that method.

基本上，我的观点是，在现代语言中，不管你把你的类放在什么文件中，或者你定义一个类的成员的顺序是什么，那么为什么我们仍然被迫使用这些古老的实践呢?还记得Gmail出来谷歌说的是"搜索，不排序"吗?那么，为什么同样的哲学不能应用于编程语言呢?

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。

除非你能解释为什么需要继承，否则不要使用它。

SESE (Single Entry Single Exit)不是法律

例子:

public int foo() {
   if( someCondition ) {
      return 0;
   }

   return -1;
}

vs:

public int foo() {
   int returnValue = -1;

   if( someCondition ) {
      returnValue = 0;
   }

   return returnValue;
}

我和我的团队发现，在很多情况下，一直遵守这一点实际上会适得其反。

最好的程序员在调试器中跟踪所有代码并测试所有路径。

嗯…OP说有争议!