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

Standard library disobeys their own style guidelines in many places. (PEP-8) Py3k's super keyword is full of unwanted magic (you can't assign it to a different name, works without self, why do we have this explicit parameter at all?) Unicode support is incomplete in Py2k and sucks in Py3k (standard input in unicode, no binary data! WTF? Creating a new WSGI standard is hacky.) The GIL. Very limited multi-threading support (with CPython) PyPI (Python Package Index) sucks. Envious glance at rubygems

其他回答

Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

Python:

Global Interpreter Lock - Dealing with this complicates parallel processing. Lambdas functions are a bit clunky. No built-in ordered-dictionary type. Depending on how Python is compiled, it can use either UCS-2 vs UCS-4 for the internal Unicode encoding, many string operators and iterators may have unexpected results for multi-byte characters that exceed the default width. String slicing and iteration depend on the bit width rather than checking and counting characters. (Most other programming languages do similar things as well and have similarly odd behavior with these characters.) There are inconsistencies surrounding GUI frameworks for Python.

C:

Lack of distinction between function pointers (executable) and data pointers (you really don't want to execute this). Extreme unreadability. Making code look like it does what it does is orders of magnitude more difficult than making it do the task in the first place. Lack of clear support for lisp-think. Doing functional things is possible, barely, but it's not clear. Serious inconsistency between libraries about how error codes are returned. Antiquated string handling. The strings aren't strings, they're null-terminated blobs. This is all manner of wince-worthy.

Lisp:

()需要按shift键。每次我口齿不清的时候,我就把它和[]交换。

objective - c

1)没有命名空间,只有手动命名约定——我不介意在类分离方面,但我确实怀念能够在一行命名空间中导入所有类定义(如import com.me.somelibrary.*)。

2)库在像RegEx支持这样的重要领域仍然存在一些漏洞。

3)属性语法有点笨拙,需要三行(在两个单独的文件中)来声明一个属性。

4)我喜欢保留/释放模式,但它比应该的更容易释放一个引用,然后意外地使用它。

5)虽然不是真正的语言特性,但Xcode与Objective-C的使用是如此交织在一起,我不禁想到这方面……基本上自动补全,是很可疑的。它更像是一个奖励你找到你想要的东西的系统,然后把它作为一个选择。但我想我从来都不喜欢自动补全引擎。

JavaScript:

The Object prototype can be modified. Every single object in your program gets new properties, and something probably breaks. All objects are hash maps, but it's difficult to safely use them as such. In particular, if one of your keys happens to be __proto__, you're in trouble. No object closure at function reference time. In fact, no object closure at all -- instead, this is set whenever a function is called with object notation or the new operator. Results in much confusion, particularly when creating event callbacks, because this isn't set to what the programmer expects. Corollary: calling a function without object notation or the new operator results in this being set equal to the global object, resulting in much breakage. Addition operator overloaded to also perform string concatenation, despite the two operations being fundamentally different. Results in pain when a value you expect to be a number is in fact a string. == and != operators perform type coercion. Comparisons between different types involve a list of rules that no mortal can remember in full. This is mitigated by the existence of === and !== operators. Both null and undefined exist, with subtly different, yet redundant meanings. Why? Weird syntax for setting up prototype chains. parseInt(s) expects a C-style number, so treats values with leading zeroes as octal, etc. You can at least parseInt(s, 10) but the default behaviour is confusing. No block scope. Can declare the same variable more than once. Can use a variable without declaring it, in which case it's global and probably breaks your program. with { }. Really difficult to document with JavaDoc like tools.