Clojure

Lack of built-in syntax for optional and keyword parameters in function definitions. Sure, you can add it easily enough, but that means library writers don't use it. Pervasive destructuring hasn't proven to be a good substitute yet Lack of method combination (before/after/around methods of the sort found in Common Lisp) Too much reliance on Java interop, e.g. there's no built-in file IO Sometimes I want static typing. This one isn't pure hate; I usually prefer dynamic, and attempts to mix the two have been largely unsatisfactory There's no built-in fast binary serialization format for the built-in data structures, though I hear people are working on it

下面是关于Perl 5的更多内容，来自创建了大量Perl模块，特别是在Moose上工作过的人的观点。

The horrible brokenness that is overloading and tied variables. Both of these features are a failed attempt to allow transparent extension to the built-in types. They both fail in various ways, and require module authors like myself to either implement horrible hacks to support them, or to say "never pass an overloaded object to the foo() method". Neither alternative is really acceptable. Lack of proper hooks into the compilation process and the meta-model. Moose in general, and role usage in particular, could be made much safer if the Perl core allowed us to affect the compilation process via a sane API that allowed us to hook into the meta-model (packages, classes, etc.) Lack of named parameters built into the language. Instead, everyone reinvents this. It's annoying. Similarly, lack of optional types. I don't want a static language, but the ability to specify types and constraints, particularly on function/method parameters, would be great. Perl 6 gets this right. Types are optional, but very rich, and there's no fundamental difference between built-in and user-defined types. The backwards compatibility police. This is more of a cultural issue. A number of the above issues can never really be fixed, since Perl 5 has a very strong commitment to backwards compatibility. So even if something were to be added that effectively replaced the current ball of shit that is tie and overloading, those features will never be removed. Of course, backwards compatibility is also one of Perl 5's greatest strengths. Bonus hate: Perl's built-in exception mechanism is a joke. The fact that exceptions may be a string or object makes for an eternity of fiddly exception-catching code, and the lack of a catch in the language syntax is the wart on the wart.

不得不假设我们有语言。我们做什么?

C#

5. 空合并运算符

的? ?运算符允许你写:

x = y ?? z;

而不是:

x = (y == null) ? y : z;

我喜欢这个运算符，但我想要另一个:

x = y ??? y.foo() : z.foo();

而不是

x = (y == null) ? y.foo() : z.foo();

我一直在使用这种东西，而且我发现输入== null部分很烦人。

4. 平等应该有更好的支持

我必须启动每个Equals(object obj)方法: MyClass other = obj作为MyClass; If (other == null)返回false;

你只需要写:

public override bool Equals(MyClass other) {...}

语言应该注意提供Equals(object obj)方法。 注意:other必须保证不为空。

3.不能使用不同类型的三元运算符

这不能编译，我认为它应该编译!

string foo = "hello";
int bar = 4;
object baz = foo == null ? foo : bar;

2. 缺少命名空间private

我喜欢内部保护，但我希望有一种保护只允许从同一名称空间内进行访问。这样可以更好地控制大型类库的访问。

1. 没有多重继承

我实际上只对接口的默认实现使用实现(类)继承，但很多时候我想这样做。

Clojure

Lack of built-in syntax for optional and keyword parameters in function definitions. Sure, you can add it easily enough, but that means library writers don't use it. Pervasive destructuring hasn't proven to be a good substitute yet Lack of method combination (before/after/around methods of the sort found in Common Lisp) Too much reliance on Java interop, e.g. there's no built-in file IO Sometimes I want static typing. This one isn't pure hate; I usually prefer dynamic, and attempts to mix the two have been largely unsatisfactory There's no built-in fast binary serialization format for the built-in data structures, though I hear people are working on it

经过一些思考后重写了这篇文章…

虽然我喜欢PHP，但我讨厌它的五个方面(排名不分先后):

内置函数中的命名和参数顺序不一致。 面向对象的数组方法多亏了SPL，但遗憾的是还没有字符串。 PHP本身没有真正的并发，只有通过托管web服务器的多处理 没有像JavaScript那样的异步调用 只能通过扩展进行操作码缓存。不是很糟糕，只是有点烦人。

这些是令我烦恼的语言特性(或缺乏)，但更大的问题是这些与人/社区相关的东西:

事实上，很多使用PHP的人，对编程和良好实践一无所知，从而产生了非常混乱的代码。JavaScript也有同样的问题。 大量的教程/书籍传授了非常糟糕的做法和风格。这可能是第三条的主要原因。 它的坏名声主要是因为第三条和第四条。