The problem with pointers is not the concept. It's the execution and language involved. Additional confusion results when teachers assume that it's the CONCEPT of pointers that's difficult, and not the jargon, or the convoluted mess C and C++ makes of the concept. So vast amounts of effort are poored into explaining the concept (like in the accepted answer for this question) and it's pretty much just wasted on someone like me, because I already understand all of that. It's just explaining the wrong part of the problem.

为了让你知道我是怎么来的，我是一个非常理解指针的人，我可以在汇编语言中熟练地使用它们。因为在汇编语言中，它们不被称为指针。它们被称为地址。当我在C语言中编程和使用指针时，我犯了很多错误，并感到非常困惑。我还没弄清楚。让我给你们举个例子。

当一个api说:

int doIt(char *buffer )
//*buffer is a pointer to the buffer

它想要什么?

它可能想要:

表示缓冲区地址的数字

(给它，我说doIt(mybuffer)，还是doIt(* mybuffer) ?)

表示缓冲区地址的一种数字

(doIt(&mybuffer) or doIt(mybuffer) or doIt(*mybuffer)?)

表示缓冲区地址的地址的数字

(可能是doIt(&mybuffer)。还是doIt(&&mybuffer) ?甚至doIt(&&&mybuffer))

and so on, and the language involved doesn't make it as clear because it involves the words "pointer" and "reference" that don't hold as much meaning and clarity to me as "x holds the address to y" and "this function requires an address to y". The answer additionally depends on just what the heck "mybuffer" is to begin with, and what doIt intends to do with it. The language doesn't support the levels of nesting that are encountered in practice. Like when I have to hand a "pointer" in to a function that creates a new buffer, and it modifies the pointer to point at the new location of the buffer. Does it really want the pointer, or a pointer to the pointer, so it knows where to go to modify the contents of the pointer. Most of the time I just have to guess what is meant by "pointer" and most of the time I'm wrong, regardless of how much experience I get at guessing.

指针重载了。指针是指向值的地址吗?或者它是一个将地址保存到值的变量。当一个函数需要一个指针时，它是想要指针变量保存的地址，还是指针变量的地址? 我困惑。

指针的复杂性超出了我们可以轻易教授的范围。让学生们互相指指点点和使用写有家庭住址的纸都是很好的学习工具。他们在介绍基本概念方面做得很好。事实上，学习指针的基本概念对于成功使用指针是至关重要的。然而，在产品代码中，通常会遇到比这些简单演示所能封装的复杂得多的场景。

我参与过的系统中，我们有一个结构指向另一个结构指向另一个结构。其中一些结构还包含嵌入式结构(而不是指向其他结构的指针)。这就是指针真正令人困惑的地方。如果你有多个间接层，你最终会得到这样的代码:

widget->wazzle.fizzle = fazzle.foozle->wazzle;

它很快就会让人感到困惑(想象更多的线，可能还有更多的关卡)。再加上指针数组和节点到节点的指针(树、链表)，情况就更糟了。我曾见过一些非常优秀的开发人员在开始开发这样的系统时迷失了方向，甚至是那些非常了解基础知识的开发人员。

Complex structures of pointers don't necessarily indicate poor coding, either (though they can). Composition is a vital piece of good object-oriented programming, and in languages with raw pointers, it will inevitably lead to multi-layered indirection. Further, systems often need to use third-party libraries with structures which don't match each other in style or technique. In situations like that, complexity is naturally going to arise (though certainly, we should fight it as much as possible).

我认为大学为帮助学生学习指针所能做的最好的事情就是使用良好的演示，并结合需要使用指针的项目。对于指针的理解，一个困难的项目要比上千个演示做得多。演示可以让您对指针有一个浅显的理解，但要深刻地理解指针，您必须真正地使用它们。

I think that the main reason that people have trouble with it is because it's generally not taught in an interesting and engaging manner. I'd like to see a lecturer get 10 volunteers from the crowd and give them a 1 meter ruler each, get them to stand around in a certain configuration and use the rulers to point at each other. Then show pointer arithmetic by moving people around (and where they point their rulers). It'd be a simple but effective (and above all memorable) way of showing the concepts without getting too bogged down in the mechanics.

一旦你学了C和c++，对某些人来说似乎就更难了。我不确定这是因为他们最终把他们没有正确掌握的理论应用到实践中，还是因为在这些语言中指针操作天生就更难。我不太记得我自己的转变，但我知道Pascal中的指针，然后转到C，完全迷失了。

每个C/ c++初学者都有同样的问题，出现这个问题不是因为“指针很难学”，而是因为“解释指针的人以及如何解释”。有的学习者从口头或视觉上理解它，最好的解释方法是用“训练”样例(适用于口头和视觉样例)。

其中“火车头”是一个指针，它不能容纳任何东西，“马车”是“火车头”试图拉(或指向)的东西。之后，你可以对“马车”本身进行分类，它可以容纳动物、植物或人(或它们的混合)。

我不认为指针本身令人困惑。大多数人都能理解这个概念。现在你能想到多少个指针或者你能适应多少个间接层次。不需要太多就能让人崩溃。它们可能会被程序中的错误意外更改，这也会使它们在代码中出错时很难调试。

我不明白指针有什么好困惑的。它们指向内存中的一个位置，也就是存储内存地址的位置。在C/ c++中，你可以指定指针所指向的类型。例如:

int* my_int_pointer;

表示my_int_pointer包含指向包含int类型的位置的地址。

指针的问题在于它们指向内存中的某个位置，因此很容易回溯到不应该在的某个位置。作为证明，看看C/ c++应用程序中大量的安全漏洞，这些漏洞来自缓冲区溢出(指针的增量超过分配的边界)。