糟糕的命名习惯:总是不可原谅的。

是的，不要总是认为你的方式更好……这可能很困难，但必须保持客观性。

I've had an experience with a coder that had such horrible naming of functions, the code was worse than unreadable. The functions lied about what they did, the code was nonsensical. And they were protective/resistant to having someone else change their code. when confronted very politely, they admitted it was poorly named, but wanted to retain their ownership of the code and would go back and fix it up "at a later date." This is in the past now, but how do you deal with a situation where they error is ACKNOWLEDGED, but then protected? This went on for a long time and I had no idea how to break through that barrier.

Global variables: I myself am not THAT fond of global variables, but I know a few otherwise excellent programmers that like them A LOT. So much so that I've come to believe they are not actually all that bad in many situations, as they allow for clarity, ease of debugging. (please don't flame/downvote me :) ) It comes down to, I've seen a lot of very good, effective, bug free code that used global variables (not put in by me!) and great deal of buggy, impossible to read/maintain/fix code that meticulously used proper patterns. Maybe there IS a place (though shrinking perhaps) for global variables? I'm considering rethinking my position based on evidence.

糟糕的命名习惯:总是不可原谅的。

是的，不要总是认为你的方式更好……这可能很困难，但必须保持客观性。

I've had an experience with a coder that had such horrible naming of functions, the code was worse than unreadable. The functions lied about what they did, the code was nonsensical. And they were protective/resistant to having someone else change their code. when confronted very politely, they admitted it was poorly named, but wanted to retain their ownership of the code and would go back and fix it up "at a later date." This is in the past now, but how do you deal with a situation where they error is ACKNOWLEDGED, but then protected? This went on for a long time and I had no idea how to break through that barrier.

Global variables: I myself am not THAT fond of global variables, but I know a few otherwise excellent programmers that like them A LOT. So much so that I've come to believe they are not actually all that bad in many situations, as they allow for clarity, ease of debugging. (please don't flame/downvote me :) ) It comes down to, I've seen a lot of very good, effective, bug free code that used global variables (not put in by me!) and great deal of buggy, impossible to read/maintain/fix code that meticulously used proper patterns. Maybe there IS a place (though shrinking perhaps) for global variables? I'm considering rethinking my position based on evidence.

与其让他们写代码，不如让他们维护代码。

除非他们不得不维护他们那堆冒着热气的意大利面，否则他们永远不会明白自己在编码方面有多糟糕。

我穿上长袍，打开一罐苏格拉底方法。

苏格拉底方法以古希腊哲学家苏格拉底的名字命名，是一种哲学探究的形式，提问者探究他人立场的含义，以激发理性思考和阐明思想。这种辩证方法经常涉及到一种对立的讨论，在这种讨论中，一种观点的辩护与另一种观点相对抗;一个参与者可能会导致另一个人在某种程度上自相矛盾，加强询问者自己的观点。

我建议对这个问题采取积极的态度。与其指责你的同事使用糟糕的风格，不如就风格和评论准则提出一些建议，让你的整个团队都能遵循。

例如，如果你主要是一个。net商店，建议坚持微软的c#风格和注释指南，因为这将使你更符合社区的标准实践。

您还可以指出一些遵循统一代码风格的例子——例如，如果不熟悉代码库的人查看了它，他们就不必破译多种风格。可以这样想:如果你正在读一本书，很容易看出每一章都是由不同的人写的，你会在读了几章后感到困惑吗?

我认为重要的是不要用消极的方式批评你的同事。最好是向人们推销改变的好处，这比说服他们写的是糟糕的代码要容易得多。

这里的许多答案都与代码格式有关，但现在并不是特别相关，因为大多数ide将按照您选择的样式重新格式化代码。真正重要的是代码是如何工作的，海报是正确的查看全局变量，复制和粘贴代码，以及我的烦恼，命名约定。糟糕的代码是存在的，这与格式没有多大关系。

好的方面是，大多数情况下都有很好的原因，这些原因通常是可量化和可解释的。所以，用一种非对抗性的方式解释原因。在许多情况下，您甚至可以为作者提供问题变得明显的场景。