关于你最喜欢的语言，你讨厌哪五件事?

最近Stack Overflow上有一群讨厌perl的人，所以我想我应该把我的“关于你最喜欢的语言你讨厌的五件事”的问题带到Stack Overflow上。拿你最喜欢的语言来说，告诉我你讨厌它的五件事。这些可能只是让你烦恼的事情，承认的设计缺陷，公认的性能问题，或任何其他类别。你只需要讨厌它，它必须是你最喜欢的语言。

不要拿它和其他语言比较，也不要谈论你已经讨厌的语言。不要用你最喜欢的语言谈论你喜欢的事情。我只是想听到你讨厌但能容忍的东西，这样你就可以使用所有其他的东西，我想听到你希望别人使用的语言。

每当有人试图把他们最喜欢的语言强加给我时，我就会问这个问题，有时是面试问题。如果有人找不出他最喜欢的工具的5个缺点，那他对它还不够了解，不能提倡它，也不能利用它赚大钱。他还没有在足够多的不同情况下使用它来充分探索它。他把它作为一种文化或宗教来倡导，这意味着如果我不选择他最喜欢的技术，我就错了。

我不在乎你用什么语言。不想使用特定的语言?那就不要。你通过尽职调查做出了明智的选择，但仍然没有使用它?好吧。有时正确的答案是“你有一个强大的编程团队，有良好的实践和丰富的Bar经验。改成Foo是愚蠢的。”

This is a good question for code reviews too. People who really know a codebase will have all sorts of suggestions for it, and those who don't know it so well have non-specific complaints. I ask things like "If you could start over on this project, what would you do differently?" In this fantasy land, users and programmers get to complain about anything and everything they don't like. "I want a better interface", "I want to separate the model from the view", "I'd use this module instead of this other one", "I'd rename this set of methods", or whatever they really don't like about the current situation. That's how I get a handle on how much a particular developer knows about the codebase. It's also a clue about how much of the programmer's ego is tied up in what he's telling me.

憎恨并不是衡量人们了解多少的唯一尺度，但我发现它是一个相当不错的尺度。他们讨厌的事情也让我知道他们对这个话题的思考有多好。

当前回答

Clojure

Lack of built-in syntax for optional and keyword parameters in function definitions. Sure, you can add it easily enough, but that means library writers don't use it. Pervasive destructuring hasn't proven to be a good substitute yet Lack of method combination (before/after/around methods of the sort found in Common Lisp) Too much reliance on Java interop, e.g. there's no built-in file IO Sometimes I want static typing. This one isn't pure hate; I usually prefer dynamic, and attempts to mix the two have been largely unsatisfactory There's no built-in fast binary serialization format for the built-in data structures, though I hear people are working on it

2010-05-23 12:46:35

其他回答

以下是我不喜欢Java的一些地方(它不是我最喜欢的语言):

Generics type erasure (i.e. no reified generics) Inability to catch multiple exceptions (of different types) in a single catch block Lack of destructors (finalize() is a very poor substitute) No support for closures or treating functions as data (anonymous inner classes are a very verbose substitute) Checked exceptions in general, or more specifically, making unrecoverable exceptions checked (e.g. SQLException) No language-level support for literal collections No type-inference when constructors of generic classes are called, i.e. the type parameter(s) must be repeated on both sides of the '='

2008-11-11 22:31:21

Type inference is limited. It propagates forward only. F# won't try to infer an object type based on the methods and properties used: you'll get "lookup of indeterminate object type" errors when it doesn't have a clue. One cannot mix floats and ints: 1 + 2.3 is a type error. It's a little awkward to have to create a builder object in order to define a monad or computation expression. In Haskell or Scala, you can define the monad operations directly on the monadic object. Though the #light syntax is preferred, the indentation rules are sometimes not very intuitive or become cumbersome.

2008-12-04 08:42:50

Groovy和Grails

动态类型约定优于配置，假设您了解约定你讨厌春天的一切你讨厌Hibernate的一切 [Groovy]跨集合的常见操作不是(但最近的版本对此进行了改进)

2008-11-11 22:40:53

C++

模板的语法钻石传承问题现代语言所拥有的标准库过多/缺乏(尽管boost也很接近)。 iostream IOStreams周围使用的语法

Python

空格是有意义的(有时) 强调关键词有限的线程支持(至少目前) 用self代替this 空格是有意义的(有时)

2008-11-11 22:26:42

不是我最喜欢的语言，但我经常使用它，有很多抱怨……

S3对象只是美化了的列表，S4类仍然将所有数据公开给用户赋值操作符可以是<- ->或=，参见Mike Dewar的咆哮我的。var是一个非常令人困惑的OO语言变量命名约定，参见谷歌的风格指南我不应该后悔使用循环神秘的错误消息

2010-05-25 21:09:38