记事本是一个完美的文本编辑器。(有时是非窗口换行符的写字板)

编辑配置文件 查看日志文件 发展

我知道有人真的相信这一点!然而，他们将使用IDE进行开发，但继续使用记事本进行其他一切!

编程既不是艺术也不是科学。这是一门工程学科。

这不是艺术:编程当然需要创造力。这并不能让它成为艺术。代码的设计和编写是为了正常工作，而不是为了情感上的感动。除了空格之外，出于美观原因更改代码会破坏代码。虽然代码可以很漂亮，但艺术不是主要目的。

这不是科学:科学和技术是不可分割的，但编程属于技术范畴。编程不是系统的学习和观察;它是设计和实现。

这是一门工程学科:程序员设计和构建东西。优秀的程序员为功能而设计。他们了解不同实现选项的利弊，并选择适合他们正在解决的问题的实现选项。

我敢肯定有些人喜欢解析文字，将艺术和科学的定义扩展到包括编程，或将工程限制为机械机器或硬件。查字典。此外，“计算机编程艺术”是艺术的另一种用法，指的是一种技能或工艺，如“对话的艺术”。编程的产物不是艺术。

未注释的代码是人类的祸害。

我认为注释对于代码是必要的。他们可视化地将其划分为逻辑部分，并在阅读代码时提供另一种表示方式。

文档注释是最低限度的，但是使用注释来分割较长的函数有助于编写新代码，并允许在返回现有代码时更快地分析。

默认情况下，所有变量/属性都应该是只读/final。

这个推理有点类似于Jon提出的类的封闭论证。程序中的一个实体应该有一个任务，而且只有一个任务。特别是，对于大多数变量和属性来说，改变值是绝对没有意义的。基本上有两个例外。

Loop variables. But then, I argue that the variable actually doesn't change value at all. Rather, it goes out of scope at the end of the loop and is re-instantiated in the next turn. Therefore, immutability would work nicely with loop variables and everyone who tries to change a loop variable's value by hand should go straight to hell. Accumulators. For example, imagine the case of summing over the values in an array, or even a list/string that accumulates some information about something else. Today, there are better means to accomplish the same goal. Functional languages have higher-order functions, Python has list comprehension and .NET has LINQ. In all these cases, there is no need for a mutable accumulator / result holder. Consider the special case of string concatenation. In many environments (.NET, Java), strings are actually immutables. Why then allow an assignment to a string variable at all? Much better to use a builder class (i.e. a StringBuilder) all along.

我意识到，今天的大多数语言并没有默认我的愿望。在我看来，由于这个原因，所有这些语言都有根本性的缺陷。如果将它们更改为默认将所有变量视为只读，并且在初始化后不允许对它们进行任何赋值，那么它们的表达性、功能和易用性将不会受到任何损失。

c++是有史以来最糟糕的编程语言之一。

它具有委员会设计的所有特征——它不能很好地完成任何给定的工作，而且某些工作(如面向对象)做得很糟糕。它有一种“厨房水槽”的绝望，不会消失。

它是学习编程的可怕的“第一语言”。你(从语言中)得不到优雅，得不到帮助。取而代之的是陷阱和雷区(内存管理、模板等)。

它不是一种学习面向对象概念的好语言。它表现为“带有类包装器的C”，而不是一种合适的OO语言。

我可以继续讲下去，但现在就讲到这里。我从来不喜欢用c++编程，虽然我是在FORTRAN上“磨砺”的，但我完全喜欢用C编程。我仍然认为C是最伟大的“经典”语言之一。在我看来，c++肯定不是这样的。

欢呼,

-R

EDIT: To respond to the comments on teaching C++. You can teach C++ in two ways - either teaching it as C "on steroids" (start with variables, conditions, loops, etc), or teaching it as a pure "OO" language (start with classes, methods, etc). You can find teaching texts that use one or other of these approaches. I prefer the latter approach (OO first) as it does emphasize the capabilities of C++ as an OO language (which was the original design emphasis of C++). If you want to teach C++ "as C", then I think you should teach C, not C++.

但就我的经验而言，c++作为第一语言的问题在于，这门语言太大了，无法在一个学期内教授，而且大多数“介绍”文本试图涵盖所有内容。在“第一语言”课程中涵盖所有主题是不可能的。在我看来，你至少要把它分成两个学期，然后它就不再是“第一语言”了。

我确实教c++，但只是作为一种“新语言”——也就是说，你必须精通一些先前的“纯”语言(不是脚本或宏)，然后才能注册这门课程。在我看来，c++是一种很好的“第二语言”。

-R

另一个编辑:(对康拉德)

I do not at all agree that C++ "is superior in every way" to C. I spent years coding C programs for microcontrollers and other embedded applications. The C compilers for these devices are highly optimized, often producing code as good as hand-coded assembler. When you move to C++, you gain a tremendous overhead imposed by the compiler in order to manage language features you may not use. In embedded applications, you gain little by adding classes and such, IMO. What you need is tight, clean code. You can write it in C++, but then you're really just writing C, and the C compilers are more optimized in these applications.

I wrote a MIDI engine, first in C, later in C++ (at the vendor's request) for an embedded controller (sound card). In the end, to meet the performance requirements (MIDI timings, etc) we had to revert to pure C for all of the core code. We were able to use C++ for the high-level code, and having classes was very sweet - but we needed C to get the performance at the lower level. The C code was an order of magnitude faster than the C++ code, but hand coded assembler was only slightly faster than the compiled C code. This was back in the early 1990s, just to place the events properly.

-R

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。