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.

我讨厌Java的五个方面:

没有一级函数。 没有类型推断。 缺乏理智的默认值在eg图形。 NullPointerException不包含更多关于什么是null的信息。 毫无意义的“可配置”框架/服务提供者接口/工厂类/依赖注入系统的激增。可配置性几乎从未使用过，严重违反了DRY，代码的大小增加了四倍，易读性减少了一半。

我知道，我应该试试Scala。

Python:

1) It's a scripting language and not a fully compiled one (I'd prefer to be able to compile binaries—I don't care about bytecode). This is very annoying if I have to use very many libraries (i.e. everyone who uses my program has to install all the libraries, and this basically means no normal people will be able to, or have the patience to, properly set it up—unless I do a ton of work that should be unnecessary). I know ways to make binaries, but they don't always work, and I'm guessing they bundle the interpreter in the binaries anyhow (and I don't want that). Now, if I could get a bytecode compiler that would include copies of all the files that I imported (and only those) to be placed in my program's folder, that might be a suitable compromise (then no one would have to download extra libraries and such). It would also be nice if the compiled python files could be compressed into a single file with one specified as the file to run the program before this is done.

2)有时看起来有点bug;有几次，应该工作的代码根本没有工作(没有程序员错误)，特别是与“from moduleX import *”和其他导入相关的问题有关的代码，以及一些与全局和局部变量有关的问题。

3)最大递归深度可以更高。至少有一次，我觉得我需要它去更高的地方。

4)没有switch语句(更不用说允许数字、字符串和范围的语句)

5)新版本的Python似乎取消了很多有用的字符串操作，而且似乎没有简单的文档说明如何在没有它们的情况下做同样的事情。

6)强制自动垃圾收集(我希望能够手动执行，尽管不一定强制执行)。

7)没有预先制作的定时器类没有使用GUI(好吧，可能有一个，但在我所做的所有搜索之后，它肯定不方便找到!我确实找到了一些东西，但当我尝试时，它根本不起作用。)所谓计时器，我指的是每隔x秒执行一个指定函数的排序，并能在需要时关闭它，等等。

8)社区里举例的人很少告诉我们他们导入了哪些模块，以及他们是如何导入的。

9)与Lua集成的支持并不多。

10)似乎没有办法向一个类的特定实例(而不是整个类)添加一个额外的函数，除非你动态地向该类添加一个对象变量，该对象具有所需的函数(但仍然，你必须为此创建另一个类)。

Lua:

元表是如此令人困惑，直到他们“点击” 缺少像a += 20这样的赋值操作符是一种痛苦 没有集成的面向对象的解决方案意味着每个人和他的狗都使用自己的口味 用于注释(——)的语法排除了加/减前后操作符的可能性 不入侵C端就不可能有任何先发制人的多任务系统

C#

我对c#非常满意，但这两个真的让我很恼火:

Constructor-based initialization for immutable classes is less convenient, less intuitive (when you read the code you don't understand what you assign to what), has less IDE backing than inline object initialization. This makes you lean towards mutable classes inevitably. I know this has been mentioned before, but I strictly have problems with initialization syntax for immutable classes. switch is too verbose. Whenever I see a situation where a switch would be proper, I'm really inclined to use an if..else if.. just because it's more terse (~30% less typing). I think there should be no fallthrough for switch, break should be implied, and case should allow comma separated list of values.

我讨厌所有语言的五件事(至少就我所知):

Does what I say/type, not what I mean Will undoubtedly meet people who think they are experts in the language, but just make a mess of it (e.g. people who insist that removing comments/unused local variables will speed up execution time for a program) Unless the language is obsolete, then it will probably continue to evolve (either the actual language, or the concepts behind using it effectively) requiring you to actively develop with it so as to not fall behind. Can't modify the lexer/compiler (add in own context sensitive grammar) No perfect language (every language is missing some sort of useful feature that usually is either impossible to simulate, will unavoidable have an ugly interface or just require far too much time to implement and get it right)