我是在冒险，因为我不能全职使用它，但无论如何我会尝试一下!

Perl 6

func("frew") != func ("frew") It annoys me, but there is good reason for it. In Perl 5 print (5 + 6) * 10 still gets me every now and then It may be easier to parse than Perl 5 in a lot of places, but it still kills my editor sometimes It still has a lot of the line noise Perl 5 which scares a lot of people. That means it's harder to get them excited etc. There are no libraries yet. This will be a non issue if Perl 6 does indeed end up supporting Perl 5, but that may be a burden not worth bearing. There's no REPL, or what rubyists would call irb. A solid interactive Perl 6 with tab completion, color coding, etc, would make using and learning it so much nicer. Currently the documentation is basically the English spec. Not exactly an easy read. I know it's a stupid cliche, but it's not out yet! (I am allowed to complain because I am helping :-P)

前三点是语言;剩下的并不是语言本身，而是它还没有问世的事实。

c# / .net:

Classes should be sealed by default There should be no lock statement - instead, you should have specific locking objects, and there should be methods such as Acquire which return disposable lock tokens. Corollary: there shouldn't be a monitor for every object. GetHashCode() and Equals() shouldn't be in System.Object - not everything's suitable for hashing. Instead, have an IdentityComparer which does the same thing, and keep the IComparer<T>, IComparable<T>, IEqualityComparer<T> and IEquatable<T> interfaces for custom comparisons. Poor support for immutability Poor way of discovering extension methods - it should be a much more conscious decision than just the fact that I'm using a namespace.

这些都是我想出来的，明天问我，我会想出一个不同的5个:)

按最讨厌到最不讨厌的顺序排列。

1.) Backwards compatibility police. Yes backcompat is a strength but Perl 5 takes it too far. Now we don't really even get new features in our language without having to enable them explicitly. I'm much prefer the inverse, if a new feature causes a problem let me disable it or enforce old behavior. e.g. perl 5.10 added say I'd rather have no feature 'say' if I have my own say implemented than have to put use feature 'say'; or use 5.010; also if 5.8 worked but 5.10 didn't. I'd rather have use 5.008; to restrict my code to only use features available up to and including 5.8 if no use version; was defined then it should be defaulted to whatever version you're running, and a recommended practice of not to restrict it unless you have to.

2)。过度的样板。

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use utf8;
use autodie;
use English '-no_match_vars';
use 5.010;
package Package::Name;

BEGIN {
    Package::Name::VERSION = 0.1;
}

sub somesub {
    my $self = shift;
    my ( $param1, $param2 ) = @_;
}
1;

现在你可以开始编码了。这不会因为第一条而改变。当然也有一些捷径，比如使用common::sense;或者使用modern::perl;这将缩短上面的内容，你可能需要一些稍微不同的模块或pragma。但因为第一条，我们永远无法把它降低到。

#!/usr/bin/perl
package Package::Name 0.01;

sub somesub ( $param1, $param2 ) {
}

一些模块正在帮助这一点，在5.0.12中有新的包版本，它完全允许这种语法，尽管我认为它需要使用5.012;首先，和Method::签名，但它永远不会完全解决，(在语言)。

3)。糟糕的变量选择

吸吸文件

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
open my $fh, "< foo" or die $!;
local $/; # enable localized slurp mode
my $content = <$fh>;
close $fh;

WTF是$!和美元/ ?重写为易读。

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use English '-no_match_vars';
open my $fh, "< foo" or die $ERRNO;
local $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR; # enable localized slurp mode
my $content = <$fh>;
close $fh;

不要忘记，如果您不想受到性能影响，'-no_match_vars'必须存在。

不直接创建匿名标量怎么样?

#!/usr/bin/perl
my $scalar_ref = \do{ my $anon_scalar };

他们就不能想出点什么办法吗?

#!/usr/bin/perl
my $scalar_ref = <>;

哦，perl是线程不友好的，因为所有的变量(包括特殊的变量)默认是全局的。至少现在你可以使用我的$_;对其词法作用域，并对其他词使用local。

4.)非常难看的语法

MooseX::Declare是一个更好的语法。我也希望->被替换为。(个人喜好不太重要)

5)。太多的TIMTOWTDI或太多的最佳实践似乎你必须读3-5本书才能弄清楚你应该如何做事情。

6)。以前的(不再适用)。Un-sane版本。5.10.0有新功能5.10.1的新功能没有设定时间，直到下一个版本。现在是每年一次的特性发布，每季度更新一次。

7)。象牙塔视角。社区问题，似乎是许多开发者想要设置更高的准入门槛，并认为可以不尊重n00b(或任何不同意他们的人)。

8)。疯狂的版本号/字符串Perl有浮点版本号，它们很难看。开发人员不知道并不是所有的下游处理版本比较的方式都是一样的。不是语言问题

0.012 # simple
5.012001 # semantic 
4.101900 # time based + version (for multiple versions in a day)
0.035_002 # prerelease

所有有效版本的perl..我们就不能用…

0.12 # simple
5.12.1 # semantic
20100713 # time based (just use the date and be careful not to need to release more than 1 a day)
0.35-beta2 # prerelease

除了

9)。升级后没有明显的方法重新安装所有XS模块

C#

Cannot create a reference (var &t = struct) No local scope destructors (IDispose comes close but its not the same) ToString, i almost dislike that every object has it but it turns out i dislike everything using it like string.format does. I rather have things that accepts a certain type (like ints, floats, text, chars only). So instead of passing in any object i need to pass in something with a implicit typecast or interface. I ended up writing something like this to safely escape text for html which worked great. Cannot use a virtual typecast (blah)obj; does not work if obj does not inherit/has an interface of blah. Simple workaround is to supply an interface with a convert function. Has no local creation. Instead of writing var o = new Item(); i would like to write (something like) Item o() (with an automatic dispose if it has one).

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。

C#

它是一种很棒的语言，特别是在LINQ中，但是与c++相比泛型支持较差。它有如此多的潜力，但目前的实现只对强类型集合和类似的琐碎事情有用。下面举几个例子:

A generic argument cannot be restricted to enums (only classes or structs). A generic argument cannot be a static class. Why? This seems like a completely artifical restriction. You cannot specify that a generic type must have a constructor with a certain signature because you cannot have constructors on interfaces. Why not? It's just another method with the special name ".ctor". Similarly, you cannot specify that a generic type must have a static method, because those also cannot be declared on interface. Something like static T Parse(string s) would often come in useful. The compiler is too eager in prohibiting some casts which the programmer knows would actually work, so they require uglyness like (TheRealType)(object)value No covariance, eg. IList<string> cannot be converted to IList<object>, even though string[] can be converted to object[]. (Microsoft might be fixing this in C# 4.0, though.)