C++

编写一个简单的代码片段要花很多时间。 对于(std::vector::const_iterator iter =[…] Vector.remove()不移除。 Vector.push_front()不存在。 头文件 没有λ 如果至少有一个虚函数，则没有自动空虚析构函数。

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insist that removing comments/unused local variables will speed up execution time for a program) Unless the language is obsolete, then it will probably continue to evolve (either the actual language, or the concepts behind using it effectively) requiring you to actively develop with it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)

C#

它是一种很棒的语言，特别是在LINQ中，但是与c++相比泛型支持较差。它有如此多的潜力，但目前的实现只对强类型集合和类似的琐碎事情有用。下面举几个例子:

A generic argument cannot be restricted to enums (only classes or structs). A generic argument cannot be a static class. Why? This seems like a completely artifical restriction. You cannot specify that a generic type must have a constructor with a certain signature because you cannot have constructors on interfaces. Why not? It's just another method with the special name ".ctor". Similarly, you cannot specify that a generic type must have a static method, because those also cannot be declared on interface. Something like static T Parse(string s) would often come in useful. The compiler is too eager in prohibiting some casts which the programmer knows would actually work, so they require uglyness like (TheRealType)(object)value No covariance, eg. IList<string> cannot be converted to IList<object>, even though string[] can be converted to object[]. (Microsoft might be fixing this in C# 4.0, though.)

C#

当被枚举的集合中的对象发生变化时，foreach命令弹出， UI控件吐出假人，因为它们在错误的线程上访问。当然是所有的调度员。调用可以移动到CLR管道， PInvoke，编组等， 我浪费了两年时间学习远程遥控， 它没有露比性感。

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:)

哇，我很惊讶SQL还没有出现在这里。我猜这意味着没有人喜欢它:)

跨实现的语法不一致 细微的代码差异可能会因为看似模糊的原因而产生巨大的性能影响 对文本操作的支持很差 入门成本低，但掌握这门语言的学习曲线陡峭 最大限度地标准化社区的最佳实践，这包括语法风格。

.．.还有一些额外的讨厌它的理由，不需要额外收费

the WHERE clause goes last, making it easy to prematurely execute an UPDATE or DELETE, destroying the whole table. Instead, the WHERE should go somewhere up front. It's difficult to implement relational division. I can set a value to NULL, but I can't test it for equality with NULL. I can check IS NULL, but that just complicates code -- needlessly so, in my opinion. Why do we need to completely respecify the formula for a GROUPed column, rather than setting an alias on the column and then GROUP BY the alias (or column index as with SORT)?