Java -不支持语言级别的组合

Erlang不在此列表中。在我最喜欢的语言中，但有一些缺陷是肯定的:

Syntax. This includes the 3 terminating tokens (,;.) and aesthetics, but more generally on how the semantic meaning of the code is expressed in text. An example is on how all lowercase tokens are atoms, so to refer to a function you can't just name it, you have to fun my_function/1, and ?PRECEDE_CONSTANTS_WITH_QUESTION_MARKS. Coming from Scheme, Haskell, etc. you just wish you could use a name. Library support is lame. This is mostly external libraries, but even the old standard library. Newer versions of Erlang have sensible POSIX regexes, but the old one had a pretty horrible library for basic string manipulation. You also never know when you're getting the value, or {ok, Value}. Related: non-uniform tools for building and distribution. Ruby has gem and rake, RSpec. Perl has CPAN. I'm unaware of decent equivalents in Erlang. The few Erlang specific tools are pretty strange. Mnesia is a great database, but coming from SQL you have lots of trivialities to learn. Same with the documentation @spec, which has a strange way of describing signatures. Often the functional paradigm hurts when you just want that little bit of mutation. Supposing you want a Hash Table, you can't just hack it as in Scheme, or SML. ets and dets alleviate some of the pain, but not much.

第六,奖金:

模块的导入和导出语法是一堆失败，这与Java的80多行导入语句没有什么不同。

综上所述，Erlang是一种乐趣^_^

Python 3

both tabs & spaces allowed for indentation And you'd think people learn from the past (Makefile). Just pick spaces and forbid tabs. YAML got it right. lack of popular third-party libraries The standard library is great, but a lot of what makes Python 2 so powerful lies in the third-party realm. Python 2 got this right :-). IEEE floats Floating points in programming languages are confusing because they're different from the way we use them in math. Instead, the number operations should be viewed as expressions that are only converted to a decimal point format when needed (i.e. printing to a screen). Maple and Mathematica did this right I think. the character set for identifiers is too restricted list.empty? is better than list.is_empty or even len(list) != 0. Similarly, process.kill! would be better than process.kill. Ruby and lisp got this right. when calling a function you must always write parentheses It would be nice if we could omit them in unambiguous cases. How is it again? dict.items or dict.items()? Ruby got this one right, too.

按最讨厌到最不讨厌的顺序排列。

1.) Backwards compatibility police. Yes backcompat is a strength but Perl 5 takes it too far. Now we don't really even get new features in our language without having to enable them explicitly. I'm much prefer the inverse, if a new feature causes a problem let me disable it or enforce old behavior. e.g. perl 5.10 added say I'd rather have no feature 'say' if I have my own say implemented than have to put use feature 'say'; or use 5.010; also if 5.8 worked but 5.10 didn't. I'd rather have use 5.008; to restrict my code to only use features available up to and including 5.8 if no use version; was defined then it should be defaulted to whatever version you're running, and a recommended practice of not to restrict it unless you have to.

2)。过度的样板。

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use utf8;
use autodie;
use English '-no_match_vars';
use 5.010;
package Package::Name;

BEGIN {
    Package::Name::VERSION = 0.1;
}

sub somesub {
    my $self = shift;
    my ( $param1, $param2 ) = @_;
}
1;

现在你可以开始编码了。这不会因为第一条而改变。当然也有一些捷径，比如使用common::sense;或者使用modern::perl;这将缩短上面的内容，你可能需要一些稍微不同的模块或pragma。但因为第一条，我们永远无法把它降低到。

#!/usr/bin/perl
package Package::Name 0.01;

sub somesub ( $param1, $param2 ) {
}

一些模块正在帮助这一点，在5.0.12中有新的包版本，它完全允许这种语法，尽管我认为它需要使用5.012;首先，和Method::签名，但它永远不会完全解决，(在语言)。

3)。糟糕的变量选择

吸吸文件

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
open my $fh, "< foo" or die $!;
local $/; # enable localized slurp mode
my $content = <$fh>;
close $fh;

WTF是$!和美元/ ?重写为易读。

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use English '-no_match_vars';
open my $fh, "< foo" or die $ERRNO;
local $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR; # enable localized slurp mode
my $content = <$fh>;
close $fh;

不要忘记，如果您不想受到性能影响，'-no_match_vars'必须存在。

不直接创建匿名标量怎么样?

#!/usr/bin/perl
my $scalar_ref = \do{ my $anon_scalar };

他们就不能想出点什么办法吗?

#!/usr/bin/perl
my $scalar_ref = <>;

哦，perl是线程不友好的，因为所有的变量(包括特殊的变量)默认是全局的。至少现在你可以使用我的$_;对其词法作用域，并对其他词使用local。

4.)非常难看的语法

MooseX::Declare是一个更好的语法。我也希望->被替换为。(个人喜好不太重要)

5)。太多的TIMTOWTDI或太多的最佳实践似乎你必须读3-5本书才能弄清楚你应该如何做事情。

6)。以前的(不再适用)。Un-sane版本。5.10.0有新功能5.10.1的新功能没有设定时间，直到下一个版本。现在是每年一次的特性发布，每季度更新一次。

7)。象牙塔视角。社区问题，似乎是许多开发者想要设置更高的准入门槛，并认为可以不尊重n00b(或任何不同意他们的人)。

8)。疯狂的版本号/字符串Perl有浮点版本号，它们很难看。开发人员不知道并不是所有的下游处理版本比较的方式都是一样的。不是语言问题

0.012 # simple
5.012001 # semantic 
4.101900 # time based + version (for multiple versions in a day)
0.035_002 # prerelease

所有有效版本的perl..我们就不能用…

0.12 # simple
5.12.1 # semantic
20100713 # time based (just use the date and be careful not to need to release more than 1 a day)
0.35-beta2 # prerelease

除了

9)。升级后没有明显的方法重新安装所有XS模块

Java

已检查的异常 类型擦除 缺少操作符重载(例如BigInteger/BigDecimal) 缺少regexp/date/duration /复杂文字 对不可变性的支持很差

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

---

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。