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 :(

Python

No statements in lambdas. GRRRR foo( a for b in c if d ) feels wrong, it surprises me every time I get away with it. Shouldin't it be foo( (a for b in c if d) )? Can i have a dict comprehension? map and filter operators have special syntax in list comprehensions, how about something for reduce? or sort? Just by having a yield statement in it, a function is magically transformed into a generator, and its interface changes completely. Also, that generator cannot do any work before the first next(). at least, not without using a function that returns a generator.

JavaScript

No brief syntax for making modular code libraries. You have to call a function that returns a dictionary of public methods. And you have to edit that in (at least) two places every time you alter the interface of your module. Creating closures involves returning it from a function that returns a function from ('sup dog) yo' function. Clutter! for each ( foo ) syntax and behavior feels like an afterthought. Knowing when your code will actually run (and in what order) is more of a dark-art. The only way to get it right for sure is put everything (yes, that too) in one big file. and even then you still need to wait for a document.onload Am i missing something? is there no trivial way to get json serialized values without building them by hand? (yes jQuery can do this, sort of).

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.

Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

Python:

没有分隔符表示块的结束会导致歧义，这样自动缩进就不能处理格式不佳的代码。 没有宏(修饰符不算) 没有像haskell的cabal或perl的CPAN那样的库自动获取 不能声明变量const(是的，可以自己定义变量，但是…) 元编程被削弱 差点忘了全局解释器锁

C是我最喜欢的，但也很糟糕。

It has the worst pre-processor ever. Why didn't they use something like m4? The whole header vs source file model is broken. Pascal got it right with units. It needs case ranges in the switch statement. Unions and casts from void* break the type system. This makes garbage collectors impossible. No nested functions. GNU C has this, but it should be standard. No boundary checking for allocated memory. There are tools that discover this but they don't detect errors where a piece of code miscalculates an address and writes to an allocated region which isn't related at all. I hate the whole pointer arithmetic. No bounds checking for arrays. Too many issues regarding portability. Even wchar_t differs across platforms.