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

Python 3

both tabs & spaces allowed for indentation And you'd think people learn from the past (Makefile). Just pick spaces and forbid tabs. YAML got it right. lack of popular third-party libraries The standard library is great, but a lot of what makes Python 2 so powerful lies in the third-party realm. Python 2 got this right :-). IEEE floats Floating points in programming languages are confusing because they're different from the way we use them in math. Instead, the number operations should be viewed as expressions that are only converted to a decimal point format when needed (i.e. printing to a screen). Maple and Mathematica did this right I think. the character set for identifiers is too restricted list.empty? is better than list.is_empty or even len(list) != 0. Similarly, process.kill! would be better than process.kill. Ruby and lisp got this right. when calling a function you must always write parentheses It would be nice if we could omit them in unambiguous cases. How is it again? dict.items or dict.items()? Ruby got this one right, too.

其他回答

PHP:

人们永远无法确定某些几乎常见的扩展在所有web服务器上都可用。 试图成为未来的一切(goto,闭包,…) 对于没有经验的用户有很多安全风险 更多的操作符重载会很好 所有不学习如何使它正常工作的可怜的程序员,给它一个坏名声

尽管如此,PHP是(脚本)语言。: -)

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

C#.

我最讨厌的是:

No multiple inheritance - imagine you could provide whatever GUI framework base class (Control, Window, whatever) with MVC - related stuff, etc... framework / base class agnostic! No "friend" keyword... I know, the RAD - victims would abuse it for all kinds of stinky code and for hilarious malpractices, but it would be nice for the OOD - guys to enforce the law of demeter No language integrated DBC features, there are the Contracts, but I would rather have that Spec# - style with a general purpose "!" - postfix operator No AOP (I don't get it... this language has attributes, it would have been SO EASY to add interception code in the compiler!) No weak event delegates - the observer pattern becomes nothing but a memory leak bait as it is now... :-(

Common Lisp

conditions aren't classes (since classes came later), even though their interface is almost identical some of the names are just weird, e.g., flet / labels (only difference: scope), and defvar / defparameter (only difference: behavior when already defined), or any of the bit-twiddling functions (dpb, ldb, etc.) packages are ... really hard to get right -- every time I think I understand them, they don't do what I want built-in data structures and functions aren't as generic as they could be (e.g., why can't I define my own hash function portably?) multiple namespaces for functions, variables, etc. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but CL made it too complex; Norvig has said he can't tell from the spec but there appear to be at least 7 namespaces)

Ruby。

Strange scoping rules - variables, constants, and methods each behave differently from each other. The rules change also depending on which keyword you used to create a closure. Or on whether you're in a class, eigenclass, object, module, or module's self. Then there's instance_eval, which changes the rules to a different set of rules. And they change again when a module is "included" or "extended", which themselves do different things to scope. And some sets of rules can't be emulated by metaprogramming, so you have to use eval. Unless you're on ruby 1.9, where all of this is different. Namespacing is basically useless. If you have Foo::File, then the stdlib File is probably broken for all of Foo. require statement is broken. If two files require eachother, the behavior of those files can change dramatically depending on which is loaded first from elsewhere. libraries change APIs dramatically and suddenly, so you have to require specific minor revision numbers of all of your dependencies. For every single ruby application on your system. The rubygems package system overrides "require" rather than putting files in the search path - because why use a system when you can replace it?