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.

.NET框架(库)

嵌套类型很少使用(例如MessageBoxButton应该是MessageBox.Button) 可变结构体(Rect, Point) 系统名称空间中有太多东西 太多不同的平等概念(对象。等于,对象。ReferenceEquals, operator ==， operator !=， IComparable.CompareTo() == 0) 数组的成员是可变的，但长度是不变的。

还有一点:

XmlSerialization不适用于不可变类型

Python。

虽然前面提到了python处理作用域的奇怪方式，但我觉得最糟糕的结果是:

import random

def myFunction():

    if random.choice(True, False):
        myString = "blah blah blah"

    print myString

也就是说，if块内部的作用域与函数的其余部分相同，这意味着变量声明可以出现在条件分支内部，并且可以在条件分支外部访问。大多数语言要么阻止你这样做，要么至少为你提供某种严格的模式。

此函数有时会成功，但有时会抛出异常。虽然这是一个人为的例子，但这可能会导致一些微妙的问题。

Ruby。

Strange scoping rules - variables, constants, and methods each behave differently from each other. The rules change also depending on which keyword you used to create a closure. Or on whether you're in a class, eigenclass, object, module, or module's self. Then there's instance_eval, which changes the rules to a different set of rules. And they change again when a module is "included" or "extended", which themselves do different things to scope. And some sets of rules can't be emulated by metaprogramming, so you have to use eval. Unless you're on ruby 1.9, where all of this is different. Namespacing is basically useless. If you have Foo::File, then the stdlib File is probably broken for all of Foo. require statement is broken. If two files require eachother, the behavior of those files can change dramatically depending on which is loaded first from elsewhere. libraries change APIs dramatically and suddenly, so you have to require specific minor revision numbers of all of your dependencies. For every single ruby application on your system. The rubygems package system overrides "require" rather than putting files in the search path - because why use a system when you can replace it?

Python:

处理数字太慢了。这不是什么大问题，除非…… 不能简单地在程序中包含导入时自动编译的C代码。 在py3k接管之前，我们仍然要忍受愚蠢的整数除法规则。 在py3k接管之前，像imap和izip这样的好东西仍然存在于一个单独的模块中。 在py3k接管之前，我们还有很多工作要做。

JavaScript:

The Object prototype can be modified. Every single object in your program gets new properties, and something probably breaks. All objects are hash maps, but it's difficult to safely use them as such. In particular, if one of your keys happens to be __proto__, you're in trouble. No object closure at function reference time. In fact, no object closure at all -- instead, this is set whenever a function is called with object notation or the new operator. Results in much confusion, particularly when creating event callbacks, because this isn't set to what the programmer expects. Corollary: calling a function without object notation or the new operator results in this being set equal to the global object, resulting in much breakage. Addition operator overloaded to also perform string concatenation, despite the two operations being fundamentally different. Results in pain when a value you expect to be a number is in fact a string. == and != operators perform type coercion. Comparisons between different types involve a list of rules that no mortal can remember in full. This is mitigated by the existence of === and !== operators. Both null and undefined exist, with subtly different, yet redundant meanings. Why? Weird syntax for setting up prototype chains. parseInt(s) expects a C-style number, so treats values with leading zeroes as octal, etc. You can at least parseInt(s, 10) but the default behaviour is confusing. No block scope. Can declare the same variable more than once. Can use a variable without declaring it, in which case it's global and probably breaks your program. with { }. Really difficult to document with JavaDoc like tools.