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。
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.
我知道我迟到了，但恨是永恒的!
Java
Runtime.exec(). So, if I don't manually clear the STDOUT and STDERR buffers, my code will hang? Wow. Die, plz.
Null Pointer Exceptions. Responsible programming means I have to treat most objects like they're unexploded bombs, which is kind of a pisser in an object-oriented language. And when the inevitable happens I kinda need to know which object blew up in my face, but Java apparently feels telling me would be cheating.
File I/O. Why do I have to jump through this many hoops to read a dang text file? And when copying files, I have to funnel the source file into my code and manually handle the output byte buffer? You're serious?
Primitives vs. Primitive Wrappers. Note that Java now has a number of features that allow you to treat primitives and their wrapper objects as interchangeable in some places, but not in others; don't worry, the compiler will let you know which is which. This feels like a hack to work around a fundamentally broketastic design decision. And it is. (EDIT: Actually, the compiler is a much crappier safety net than I thought, particular when doing equality checks. If `a` and `b` are integers, `a == b` is guaranteed to behave as expected only if at least one of them is of type `int`. If they're both type `Integer`, then that statement will do what you think only if the two numbers are between -128 and 127. `Integer a = 1000; Integer b = 1000; return a == b;` will return `false`. Really.)
XML. I have this dirt-simple little XML file I need to create and I have to do what?
Oracle SQL
DUAL表。
不能通过别名分组。
我永远记不住分析函数的语法，所以我忘记/懒得使用它们。
缺少组合的LIKE和IN条件运算符。(不过，在10g之后，有一个REGEX_LIKE操作符可以做到这一点。)
笨拙的连接语法。
SQL并不是我最喜欢的语言，但它是我每天使用的三大语言之一。可能还有更多的项目，但这些是我脑海中最重要的。
我有一大堆SQL*PLUS的问题。我写了一个Perl的替代品，从命令行做我想做的，我使用sql。Emacs中的el用于交互式SQL会话。这些工具可以帮助我解决SQL*PLUS问题。
说到这里:
Perl
"Only perl can parse Perl." (But this is mostly an issue in syntax highlighting, which I don't prefer to use much anymore for any language.)
I'm sometimes surprised by "the simple (but occasionally surprising) rule...: It looks like a function, therefore it is function, and precedence doesn't matter." (From perlfunc(1))
Dereferencing complex data structures can be confusing at times. I can't decide if this is a true flaw in Perl or just a consequence of having really powerful data structure facilities. Either way, I can normally get it right by taking a few minutes to think about what I'm doing.
No option to cause system calls to raise their errors like the DBI module. (Thanks to brian d foy, I now know the autodie module on CPAN does this, but I'd like it built-in.)
Warnings and strictures not enabled by default in scripts. (The -e option would turn them off for command line use.)
同样，肯定还有更多的事情，但这些是我最近注意到的问题。我还要加上=over and =back和古怪的L<…>语法在POD中，但也许那应该是一个单独的列表。
现在来看看三连冠:
康壳牌
Sourcing a file with arguments replaces the values of the parent script's arguments. (Executing . file arg1 puts arg1 in $1.)
ksh is not an ideal interactive shell and defaults to vi key-bindings, rather than emacs. (My solution is to use bash for interactive shells.)
Common utilities (such as grep) are implemented differently across different platforms thereby preventing perfect portability. Some useful commands need to be installed on some platforms and are part of the OS core on others.
The syntax for conditionals is overly heavy. (if [ ... ]; then ... fi)
Although it is Turing Complete, you are eventually going to want to move up to a more expressive language like Perl.
第4个问题的一个解决方案是习惯短路评估:
[ ... ] && ...
