C#.

我最讨厌的是:

No multiple inheritance - imagine you could provide whatever GUI framework base class (Control, Window, whatever) with MVC - related stuff, etc... framework / base class agnostic! No "friend" keyword... I know, the RAD - victims would abuse it for all kinds of stinky code and for hilarious malpractices, but it would be nice for the OOD - guys to enforce the law of demeter No language integrated DBC features, there are the Contracts, but I would rather have that Spec# - style with a general purpose "!" - postfix operator No AOP (I don't get it... this language has attributes, it would have been SO EASY to add interception code in the compiler!) No weak event delegates - the observer pattern becomes nothing but a memory leak bait as it is now... :-(

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:)

c#(好吧，我猜一部分是VisualStudio IDE):

No covariance (yet), like Class<D> cannot be used in place of Class<B> even though type D derives from type B. Graphic designers don't support generic based inheritance (or inheritance from abstract classes), even though the inheritance itself works just fine if you work around the designer problems by adding extra inheritance levels just so designers always see concrete non-generic variants of your code. No constructor inheritance No constructors in where clauses of generic type parameters VisualStudio seems to have a tendency to mysteriously check out files (like project files and/or unit test definitions) when opening a solution, even though the files do not seem to actually get altered.

如果你明天再问我，可能会有不同的名单。即使协方差和设计师的麻烦将在我的前5名，直到他们被解决(随着方差添加到c# 4.0，这似乎已经发生了至少一个…)

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)。

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.

我刚刚发现，在c#中创建泛型方法时，我不能使用Enum作为类型约束。

微软有一个足够好的解释，但仍然。我疯了

public static T MyFunc<T>(string arg) where T:Enum //wont work :(