但这只是因为VB6毒害了整整一代程序员

我在一个曾经是VB6商店的VB . net商店工作，而在这里工作的每一个曾经是VB6开发人员的人都顽固地拒绝学习任何关于. net的知识。他们编写的代码就像VB6一样，他们的应用程序就像VB6应用程序一样糟糕。我的老板非常不鼓励使用LINQ，因为她担心其他人很难理解，这是事实，因为没有人想要理解它。

我认为如果微软只使用c#，我们会过得更好，这让我很难受，因为我认为花括号远不如VB的冗长结束语句。

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 '='

Quenya

• Community is too small. It's next to impossible to get a good language-immersion program going when there's no easy to find another speaker nearby. • Irregular verbs. Yes, I know English and Spanish mentioned them, too, but Quenya was invented. Why does there still need to be irregular verbs? • No Unicode support. I have to have three different Tengwar fonts on my computer before I can read most messages, and several of them are poorly kerned. This wouldn't really be a huge issue given the existence of a Romanized transcription, but Tengwar is so beautiful, you don't not want to use it. • Not all concepts can be easily referenced in Quenya, leading to annoying circumlocutions, or resorting to Sindarin, Númenórean, or (Manwë save me) Klingon to get my point across.

SAS

从不有自己的想法(一切都是借来的)。 贪婪于庞大的数据集。 使用Java，但从未学习过什么是对象。 窃取Perl，但将其隐藏在其数据步骤中。 统计学家总是撒谎!

C#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.

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