在C或c++中，sizeof…参数的圆括号是可选的。假设参数不是类型:

void foo() {
  int int_inst;

  // usual style - brackets ...
  size_t a = sizeof(int);
  size_t b = sizeof(int_inst);
  size_t c = sizeof(99);

  // but ...
  size_t d = sizeof int_inst; // this is ok
  // size_t e = sizeof int; // this is NOT ok
  size_t f = sizeof 99; // this is also ok
}

我一直不明白这是为什么!

很简单，Erlang有很多。例如，标点符号的三种形式，

a_function(SomeVariable) ->
  statements_end_with_commas(),
  case PatternMatching of
    0 -> now_we_end_with_semicolon;
    true -> except_the_last_one
  end.

%%  Function definitions end with periods!

我有点纠结:

1;

在perl中，模块需要返回true。

ActionScript 3:

当一个对象被它的接口使用时，编译器不识别从object继承的方法，因此:

IInterface interface = getInterface();
interface.toString();

给出一个编译错误。 解决方法是将类型转换为Object

Object(interface).toString();

PHP:

． 和+运算符。它有其合理的解释，但“a”+“5”= 5仍然显得尴尬。

Java(以及任何IEEE754的实现):

System.out.println(0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1);

输出0.9999999999999999

JavaScript日期全是WTF。

var d = new Date("1/1/2001");

var wtfyear = d.getYear(); // 101 (the year - 1900)
// to get the *actual* year, use d.getFullYear()

var wtfmonth = d.getMonth(); // 0
// months are 0-based!

在fortran中(当然是77，可能在95中也是如此)，未声明的变量和以I到N开头的参数(“In”组)将是INTEGER，所有其他未声明的变量和参数将是REAL(源)。这与“在某些情况下可选的空白”相结合，导致了最著名的错误之一。

正如弗雷德·韦伯在1990年的《另类民间传说:计算机》一书中所说:

I worked at Nasa during the summer of 1963. The group I was working in was doing preliminary work on the Mission Control Center computer systems and programs. My office mate had the job of testing out an orbit computation program which had been used during the Mercury flights. Running some test data with known answers through it, he was getting answers that were close, but not accurate enough. So, he started looking for numerical problems in the algorithm, checking to make sure his tests data was really correct, etc. After a couple of weeks with no results, he came across a DO statement, in the form: DO 10 I=1.10 This statement was interpreted by the compiler (correctly) as: DO10I = 1.10 The programmer had clearly intended: DO 10 I = 1, 10 After changing the . to a , the program results were correct to the desired accuracy. Apparently, the program's answers had been "good enough" for the sub-orbital Mercury flights, so no one suspected a bug until they tried to get greater accuracy, in anticipation of later orbital and moon flights. As far as I know, this particular bug was never blamed for any actual failure of a space flight, but the other details here seem close enough that I'm sure this incident is the source of the DO story.

我认为这是一个很大的WTF，如果DO10I被作为DO10I，并且反过来，因为隐式声明被认为是类型REAL。这是个很棒的故事。