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
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。
其他回答
你不需要编写所有的程序
我厌倦了所有的事情，但所有的事情都需要塞进一个程序，这样总是更快。一切都需要基于网络，一切都需要通过计算机完成。请用你的笔和纸。它更快，更少维护。
Xah Lee: actually has some pretty noteworthy and legitimate viewpoints if you can filter out all the invective, and rationally evaluate statements without agreeing (or disagreeing) based solely on the personality behind the statements. A lot of my "controversial" viewpoints have been echoed by him, and other notorious "trolls" who have criticized languages or tools I use(d) on a regular basis. [Documentation Generators](http://en.wikipedia.or /wiki/Comparison_of_documentation_generators): ... the kind where the creator invented some custom-made especially-for-documenting-sourcecode roll-your-own syntax (including, but not limited to JavaDoc) are totally superfluous and a waste of time because: 1) They are underused by the people who should be using them the most; and 2) All of these mini-documentation-languages all of them could easily be replaced with YAML
That (at least during initial design), every Database Table (well, almost every one) should be clearly defined to contain some clearly understanable business entity or system-level domain abstraction, and that whether or not you use it as a a primary key and as Foreign Keys in other dependant tables, some column (attribute) or subset of the table attributes should be clearly defined to represent a unique key for that table (entity/abstraction). This is the only way to ensure that the overall table structure represents a logically consistent representation of the complete system data structure, without overlap or misunbderstood flattening. I am a firm believeer in using non-meaningful surrogate keys for Pks and Fks and join functionality, (for performance, ease of use, and other reasons), but I beleive the tendency in this direction has taken the database community too far away from the original Cobb principles, and we jhave lost much of the benefits (of database consistency) that natural keys provided.
那么为什么不两者都用呢?
编写小方法。程序员似乎喜欢编写冗长的方法，在这些方法中他们可以做多种不同的事情。
我认为应该在任何可以命名的地方创建方法。
如果我有争议的话，我不得不说乔恩·斯基特并不是万能的。
