最近Stack Overflow上有一群讨厌perl的人,所以我想我应该把我的“关于你最喜欢的语言你讨厌的五件事”的问题带到Stack Overflow上。拿你最喜欢的语言来说,告诉我你讨厌它的五件事。这些可能只是让你烦恼的事情,承认的设计缺陷,公认的性能问题,或任何其他类别。你只需要讨厌它,它必须是你最喜欢的语言。

不要拿它和其他语言比较,也不要谈论你已经讨厌的语言。不要用你最喜欢的语言谈论你喜欢的事情。我只是想听到你讨厌但能容忍的东西,这样你就可以使用所有其他的东西,我想听到你希望别人使用的语言。

每当有人试图把他们最喜欢的语言强加给我时,我就会问这个问题,有时是面试问题。如果有人找不出他最喜欢的工具的5个缺点,那他对它还不够了解,不能提倡它,也不能利用它赚大钱。他还没有在足够多的不同情况下使用它来充分探索它。他把它作为一种文化或宗教来倡导,这意味着如果我不选择他最喜欢的技术,我就错了。

我不在乎你用什么语言。不想使用特定的语言?那就不要。你通过尽职调查做出了明智的选择,但仍然没有使用它?好吧。有时正确的答案是“你有一个强大的编程团队,有良好的实践和丰富的Bar经验。改成Foo是愚蠢的。”


This is a good question for code reviews too. People who really know a codebase will have all sorts of suggestions for it, and those who don't know it so well have non-specific complaints. I ask things like "If you could start over on this project, what would you do differently?" In this fantasy land, users and programmers get to complain about anything and everything they don't like. "I want a better interface", "I want to separate the model from the view", "I'd use this module instead of this other one", "I'd rename this set of methods", or whatever they really don't like about the current situation. That's how I get a handle on how much a particular developer knows about the codebase. It's also a clue about how much of the programmer's ego is tied up in what he's telling me.

憎恨并不是衡量人们了解多少的唯一尺度,但我发现它是一个相当不错的尺度。他们讨厌的事情也让我知道他们对这个话题的思考有多好。


当前回答

C++

The inconsistencies in the libraries related to char* and std::string. All C++ libs should take std::strings. Characters are not bytes with respect to iostream. I do a lot of byte-oriented work. Having a "byte" type and a "character" type would significantly make it simpler. That, too, would permit scaling to Unicode somewhat easier. Bit operations should be easy on a value. I should be able to access and set the n'th bit of a value without playing AND/OR dancing. The lack of a standardized interface for GUIs. This is where Microsoft has really been able to position themselves well with C#. A standard interface binding that OS makers provide would go really far for my work.

其他回答

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.

Delphi(又名Object Pascal),我将讨论本机版本,而不是。net。

Var块! 语言中的接口在设计时就考虑到了COM的使用——因此比c#或Java要复杂得多。ie。涉及引用计数,除非显式禁用它。 没有尝试,只有最终结束; 对象创建过于显式: var obj: TMyObject; ... obj:= TMyObject.Create; 试一试 ... 最后 obj.Free; 结束;

而是像这样

auto obj: TMyObject; // compiler adds the default constructor call and the destructor call in a try/finally block. 

好吧,语言太好了,我真的想不出更多,所以我在这里强迫自己:内置类型,如字符串,整数..或者枚举最好有方法。ie。i. tostring代替IntToStr(i)。

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 / C + +

缺乏完整的SWAP功能 模板的语法 你不能#define一个#define(没有多通道) 编译器之间的结构打包不兼容 Char是有符号的还是无符号的?

Java

边缘上的不变性 没有像c#一样的ref关键字 到处尝试/捕捉积木 运行时性能差 所有与字符串相关的东西

Python

没有“main”(我已经习惯了!) 强调关键词 有限的线程支持 用self代替this 缺少类似C/ c++的语法

JavaScript

Every script is executed in a single global 'namespace'...something which you have to look out for when working with scripts from different sources If a variable is used but hasnt been defined before hand, it is considered a global variable Browser vendors making up standards as they please, making coding for us developers using such a beautiful language harder than it should be Case-Sensitivity - considering that there is no decent IDE for developing js with compile-time checking Workarounds (such as the use of hasOwnProperty method) to perform some, otherwise simple operations.