那"我讨厌某些语言的五件事"清单呢?: D

把橙色涂成红色并不能让它成为苹果。

当设计一种语言时，设计者通常会考虑它的用途。用它做一些完全不同的事情是可以的，但是当它不起作用时抱怨是愚蠢的。Python。我相信总有一天会有人用Python代码创建exe工具。你到底为什么要这么做?不要误解我的意思，这样做很好，但没有任何用处。所以别再抱怨了!

一个设计良好的项目很可能包含来自多种语言的代码。这并不是说你不能只用一种语言完成一个项目。有些项目可能完全在您所使用的任何语言的能力范围内。

4-你是用木腿站着吗?

The platform can be a large influence of what the language can do. With nowadays garbage collectors, or well even pascals early attempt at "garbage collection", can aid in memory fade (maybe malloc more ram??). Computers are faster and so of course, we expect more out of our languages. And quite frankly, we probably should. However, there is a huge price to pay for the convenience of the compiler to create hash tables or strings or a variety of other concepts. These things may not be inherit to the platform of which they are used. To say they are easy to include to a language just tells me you may not have a leg to stand on.

3-到底是谁的错?

Bugs. You know. I love bugs. Why do I love bugs. Because it means I get to keep my job. Without bugs, there would be many closed pizza shops. However, users hate bugs. But here is a little splash of cold water. Every bug is the programmers fault. Not the language's. A language with such a strict syntax that would significantly reduce how many bugs were possible to generated would be a completely useless language. It's abilities could probably be counted on one hand. You want flexibility or power? You've got bugs. Why? Because you're not perfect, and you make mistakes. Take a really identifiable example in C:

int a[10];
for (int idx = 0; idx < 15; idx++) a[idx] = 10;

我们都知道会发生什么。然而，也许我们中的一些人没有意识到…这种功能是非常有益的。这取决于你在做什么。缓冲区溢出是该功能的代价。上面的代码。如果我真的把它公之于众。这是再一次. .和我一起说。“我的错”。不是C，因为你允许我这么做。

2-我们不应该把它放进回收站吗?

It's very easy to point at a feature in a language we don't understand because we don't use it often and call it stupid. Complain that it's there etc. Goto's always entertain me. People always complain about goto's being in a language. Yet I bet your last program included a type of goto. If you have ever used a break or a continue, you've used a goto. That's what it is. Granted, it's a "safe" goto, but it is what it is. Goto's have their uses. Whether "implicit" gotos like continue or break are used or explicit gotos (using the actual keyword "goto" for whatever language). Not that language developers are flawless, but typically... if functionality has existed since the dawn of time (for that language). Likely that aspect is a defining quality of that language. Meaning.. it's being used and likely is not hanging around because of backwards compatibility. It's being used today. As in 5 minutes ago. And used properly. Well.. arguably someone is using it improperly as well, but that relates to #3 on my list.

1. -一切都是客体。

Ok.. this one is really a subset of #2. But this is by far the most annoying complaint I see in hate lists. Not everything is an object. There are a great many of concepts that do not belong or need to be objects. Putting things where they don't belong is just ugly and can decrease efficiency of a program. Sure. Maybe not much depending on the language. This also relates to #5. This means... yes. Global are ok. Functions as apposed to static methods are ok. Combining OO programming with global functions is ok. Now.. that doesn't mean we should all go out and "free" our code from it's object models either. When designing a section of code or a whole project, what happens behind the scenes should be considered when putting it together. Not only where that concept lives and many other factors. Why wrap global functions within classes or name space concepts if it serves no purpose? Take static member variables. That greatly amuses me because.. well..Depending on the language and implementation of course, but generally speaking, you just declared a global. Yes, there are some reasons to wrap these non-OO concepts in OO wrappers. One of course being self documenting code. That can make sense. So.. like I say. Don't go out and "free" your code. But any good modern language will have a global concept outside of it's OO modeling. Yes I'm specifically meaning to point out that an OO programming language without a global concept most likely has a serious design flaw. Again though.. depends on the intention and design of the language so I'm not attempting to pick on any specific language and there are far too many to analyze right here. Anywho, Consider where the code should live and be the most effective. Adding a bunch of flare to something which doesn't add functionality or support just wears down the keyboard faster. It doesn't do anybody any good. Well.. unless you like brownie points from the person who probably incorrectly taught you that everything is an object.

In short, programming isn't just mindlessly tapping on the keyboard. There are a lot of design considerations to any project. I know it's cliche, but you have to look at it from every angle. Even with nowadays type-safe languages. You don't just chuck code out and expect it to work well. Sure.. it may work, but it may not be the right way to go about it. Overall, pick the language and format that is best suited for the specific job AND the environment. But no language takes away the thought behind it. If you're not thinking.. you're just typing.

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?

C

bit fields -- they aren't well specified by the language and how they work is compiler dependent and architecture dependent. It's often hard to find where a particular symbol is defined in a large mass of code, esp. if that symbol is produced by a macro. Which reminds me... The preprocessor is a rather ugly hack, amenable to all sorts of abuse. lack of standard sized integers (remedied by uint*_t lately, but there is lots and lots of old code floating around out there with custom typedefs or #defines for DWORD, WORD, BYTE, etc.) Lack of something akin to Perl's cpan.org (would love to be wrong about that one.)

编辑: 在考虑C的CPAN时，我想……我该怎么称呼这样的东西，然后想到了“ccan”，然后谷歌了一下，我看到了这个: http://ccan.ozlabs.org/

不过，它似乎还处于起步阶段。

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。

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.

PHP:

荒谬的assert()函数…它对里面的代码运行eval() ?>标签删除了它后面的换行符?! 奇怪的数字字符串处理(尝试将它们作为数组键) 令人痛苦的unicode支持似乎将不再被PHP 6解决 入门成本低意味着95%的人给PHP程序员起了一个可怕的名字——试图在这5%中找到一个人来雇佣是疯狂的。