Lua

我喜欢这门语言，但是有一些事情困扰了我很多年!

No (built-in) support of binary operations (as of 5.1, it might come with 5.2). Should have a built-in binary buffer implementation, allowing for example in place long string concatenation. I know it doesn't fit well in the syntax, but sometime I miss longVariableName++ or verboseVariableName += 5. Reference assumes knowledge of C (I have it but it is a minus for newcomers) and defers some help to C reference! And sometime it is too terse. It is starting to have a good deal of libraries, but you have to get them from various places. On the other hand, the download is very small! ;-)

C

It's so flexible and powerful that it's really easy to write really awful, or downright dangerous code (or, if you prefer, "with great power comes great responsibility"). '=' for assignment, and '==' for equality; easy to confuse in 'if' statements. The implementation of a number of fundamental parts of the language are compiler-dependent; e.g. the size of the basic types, order of bits in bitfields, padding and byte order in unions. Bitfields aren't parameterisable (i.e. you can array of ints, but you can't have an array of bits). String handling could be improved.

我对特尔斐的5分:

Procedures and functions aren't necessarily distinguished from variables if not parameterized (eg, I can have statement such as x := GetPositionOnScreen; instead of x := GetPositionOnScreen();) Try/Finally and Try/Except needs to be nested (stated once before, but it's still one of mine as well). Not case sensitive. Can have a multiple objects (functions, global variables, local variables) named the same and Delphi will happily try to figure out what you mean. names should be unique. Odd if condition rules. a single conditional check doesn't require a () around it, but if I do multiple checks, I need a () around each one, and sometimes multiple nested sets for bigger checks. No inherited includes. If I need to reference functionality from the Windows unit in a base and an inherited form, I have to include Windows in both.

我可以为Python添加另一个:

给定一个列表l = [l1, l2，…]， ln]，那么repr(l) = [repr(l1)， repr(l2)，…， repr(ln)]，但str(l) != [str(l1)， str(l2)，…， str(ln)] (str(l) = repr(l))。之所以这样做，是因为列表中可能有模糊的条目，如l = ["foo]， [bar，"， "]，["]， str(l)将返回"[foo]， [bar，]，[]"，这“可能会使用户感到困惑”。然而，这使得str不可能仅用于转储数据，因为list杀死了“仅以可读格式转储数据”。Augh !

C#

我的大部分抱怨都与假设c++约定自动成为c#的最佳选择有关

Class接口中不允许静态。这仍然是课程的一部分。为什么它不能成为界面的一部分?我不得不想出这么愚蠢的变通办法。 区分大小写。我知道在这一点上它会破坏遗留的应用程序，但为什么不区分大小写不是一开始的规则

对于。net的好处之一(不是c#特有的)

编译器不够聪明。在。net 3中。X，编译器可以找出“var”在编译时，为什么不其他常见的优化?我们都知道string和StringBuilder / immutable和mutable的区别。为什么编译器不为你转换它在很多情况下，显然StringBuilder比多个connect .s更好?我相信在默认情况下，编译器可以为我们做大量的其他优化(带有否决选项)，并为我们节省大量的时间。

我讨厌Java(目前它是我最喜欢的语言)的五个方面，排名不分先后。

As much as I am a fan of Java Generics, there are a lot of oddities that arise from the way it was designed. As such there a myriad of annoying limitations with generics (some of which are the result of type-erasure). The way Object.clone() and the Cloneable interfaces work is totally broken. Instead of taking the high-road and making everything an object (a.la. SmallTalk), Sun wimped out created two distinct categories of data-types: Objects and primitives. As a result there are now two representations for fundamental data types and wierd curiosities such as boxing/unboxing and not being able to put primitives in a Collection. Swing is too complex. Don't get me wrong: there's a lot of cool stuff one can do with Swing but it is a great example of over-engineering. This final complaint is equally the fault of Sun and those whom have written XML libraries for Java. Java XML libraries are way too complicated. In order to simply read in an XML file, I often have to worry about what parser I am using: DOM or SAX? The APIs for each is equally confusing. Native support in the language for easily parsing/writing XML would be very nice. java.util.Date sucks. Not only is it unnecessarily complicated but all the useful methods have been deprecated (and replaced with others that increase complexity).