类应该适合屏幕。

如果你必须使用滚动条来查看你所有的类，你的类太大了。

代码折叠和微型字体是作弊。

默认情况下，数组应该基于1，而不是基于0。系统实现语言不一定是这样，但是像Java这样的语言吸收了更多C语言的奇怪之处。“元素1”应该是第一个元素，而不是第二个，以避免混淆。

计算机科学不是软件开发。毕竟，你不会雇佣一个只学过物理的工程师。

尽可能多地学习数学。您不会使用大部分的知识，但是您需要能够以这种方式思考才能擅长软件。

目前标准化的唯一最好的编程语言是Common Lisp，尽管它很冗长并且有从零开始的数组。这很大程度上是因为它被设计成一种方式 来写计算，而不是抽象的冯·诺依曼机器。

至少90%的对编程语言的比较批评可以归结为“语言A有C特性，而我不知道如何在语言B中实现C或类似的功能，所以语言A更好。”

“最佳实践”是我所见过的“平庸”最令人印象深刻的拼写方式。

递归最糟糕的地方就是递归。

尽可能在任何地方使用类型推断。

编辑:

这是我几个月前写的一篇关于我为什么有这种感觉的博客文章的链接。

http://blogs.msdn.com/jaredpar/archive/2008/09/09/when-to-use-type-inference.aspx

生成文档良好的代码比生成文档不良的代码花费的时间更少

When I say well-documented I mean with comments that communicate your intention clearly at every step. Yes, typing comments takes some time. And yes, your coworkers should all be smart enough to figure out what you intended just by reading your descriptive function and variable names and spelunking their way through all your executable statements. But it takes more of their time to do it than if you had just explained your intentions, and clear documentation is especially helpful when the logic of the code turns out to be wrong. Not that your code would ever be wrong...

I firmly believe that if you time it from when you start a project to when you ship a defect-free product, writing well-documented code takes less time. For one thing, having to explain clearly what you're doing forces you to think it through clearly, and if you can't write a clear, concise explanation of what your code is accomplishing then it's probably not designed well. And for another purely selfish reason, well-documented and well-structured code is far easier to dump onto someone else to maintain - thus freeing the original author to go create the next big thing. I rarely if ever have to stop what I'm doing to explain how my code was meant to work because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who can read English (even if they can't read C/C++/C# etc.). And one more reason is, frankly, my memory just isn't that good! I can't recall what I had for breakfast yesterday, much less what I was thinking when I wrote code a month or a year ago. Perhaps your memory is far better than mine, but because I document my intentions I can quickly pick up wherever I left off and make changes without having to first figure out what I was thinking when I wrote it.

这就是为什么我能很好地编写文档——不是因为我觉得编写适合展示的漂亮代码是一种崇高的使命，也不是因为我是一个纯粹主义者，而只是因为端到端让我在更短的时间内发布高质量的软件。

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