Scala是我最喜欢的语言。五件讨厌的事?容易:

Takes a long time to learn properly. I know you can write Scala as a 'better java'. That is what we used to say about C++ and C too. I agree this is an inevitable consequence of the deep ideas in the language. But still ... Methods vs. Functions: def f(x: Int) = x*x defines a method f, not a function f. Methods are not functions despite a lot of early Scala tutorial material blurring the distinction. The language tries to blur it too because if you supply a method in some places where a function is expected it is accepted. Do we have to have both methods and functions? Yes it is fundamental. But it was initially confusing to me. Composing classes or objects from mixins in the 'cake' pattern is prone to NPE's. e.g. trait X { val host: String; val url = "http://" + host } is a mixin that will NPE on instantiation, or not, depending on its position in the class declaration. The compiler could tell you if it will fail but doesn't. (In 2.7 anyway.) It is hard to diagnose the problem in complex inheritance graphs. Arrays in 2.8 rely on implicits to mesh with the main scala collection types. But implicits are not applied everywhere. An Array can be supplied where a Seq is expected. But an Option[Array] cannot be supplied where an Option[Seq] is expected. I know there are no completely 'right' ways to handle java Arrays. Type erasure. Enough said.

C#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.

Python:

You usually have the entry point of the program at the end of the file. (Because if it calls any function defined in the module, it has to occur after those functions in the sources.) I hate it when you have to spend time looking for the entry point of a program, so I always have a simple main.py file with: def main(): ... if __name__ == '__main__': main() When an exception is raised, it can only be catched by the main thread. Or something like that. Destructors are quite useless, because when written in Python they may break garbage collection IIRC. I've never figured out how relative imports work in Python 2. I'd like to see more collections in the standard library. For example: linked lists, thread-safe collections, ...

Haskell:

空间泄漏——懒惰的默认代价——也许代价太高了? 甚至像head和tail这样的纯函数也会调用错误并引导您进入IO。 fail from Monad -带回MonadZero。 Num类-(+)应该在AdditiveGroup或类似的类型中。 那个单子不是一个应用程序。

C#

c#最让人讨厌的是:

(1)事件具有对所有侦听器的强引用，从而防止了侦听事件的任何东西的垃圾收集。如果你想看到这造成的问题，只需在网上搜索所有试图通过创建某种“弱引用事件处理程序”来解决问题的人。

(2)在调用一个事件之前，需要检查它是否等于null，这似乎应该由语言来处理。

(3) XML序列化器无法读取/写入XML文件中的注释。在手工修改XML文件和用c#编写的工具修改XML文件的环境中，情况并不好。可以通过使用原始的XmlDocument来解决，但如果能够将其抽象到一个类中会更好。

(4)构建过程不允许您直接访问xsd文件之类的东西，相反，您需要一个中间步骤，即创建一个c#部分类。这也会导致XAML文件出现问题，有时需要重新构建两次才能使更改正确地通过。

(5)不支持CPU intrinsic，如MMX和SSE 1,2,3,4，因此这些有价值的CPU特性在运行c#应用程序时无法使用。

其他没有进入我的前5名:

(6)不能将字段标记为属性，所有属性必须从一开始就显式地实现:

目前有:

public class MyClass {
    private int someInt;

    public int SomeInt {
        get {
                return someInt;
        }
        set {
                someInt = value;
        }
    }
}

想

public class MyClass {
    [IsProperty(public, get, set)]
    private int someInt;
}

(7)不支持多个返回值，例如:

public int, string, double MyFunction()
{
    ....
    return x,y,z;
}


public void TestMyFunction()
{
    int x, string y, double z = MyFunction();
}

(8)不支持协变返回类型

我对泛型实现有一些不满，但我就此打住。我认为c#是一种很棒的语言，可以完成所有的GUI、网络和配置管道，并且是我的首选语言，可以以一种可以长期支持的方式快速启动和运行。

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。