JavaScript

ECMAScript 5规范:

7.6.1.2未来保留词: 类，enum, extends, super, const, export， 进口 严格模式:实现、let、private、public、interface、package、protected、static、yield 11.9.4严格等于操作符(===)对比11.9.1 TheEqualsOperator(==) 11.9.6严格相等比较算法(NaN === NaN is false) 8.5数字类型-没有实整数，所有都是浮点数。 4.2.1对象——原型继承

好吧，我有点喜欢最后一个，但它有7种让人困惑的地方

我讨厌Python的地方:

没有编译器 它没有被认真对待

Python让我恼火的地方:

(自我, 没有私人 打破兼容性

我讨厌PHP的五个方面:

“按预期工作”，而这显然是一个bug 没有转到 有bug的引用(foreach $arr => &$val…Foreach $arr => $val) 没有多重继承 没有一个编译器能够真正工作，而不需要向黑暗之神牺牲一只羔羊

Erlang

没有静态推断 就像在哈斯凯尔发现的一样。这 会导致运行时错误和一个 有认真写代码还是使用 透析器(1)发现 差异。动态类型是 慢的:也被认为是慢的; 与C、Java等语言相比，它几乎是未知的; 的lists(3)模块有时相当精简 我缺少用于列表处理的有用函数 (就像在数据。例如Haskell中的List); 让我在每句话的结尾都加上 在从句中，和。最后是后者。

Python

那些我不理解的…

math.ceil() and math.floor() return floats, not integers (probably to avoid an integer overflow in the underlying C function - but why not cast to a Python long?) len() is a function not a method reload() is very limited, does not reload a module 9 times out of 10, only reloads an imported label if it is a module - i.e. cannot do from bar import foo; reload(foo) if foo is not itself a module Mutable default arguments have a single reference (why not a new instance each function call?!) All these underscored variables - if they are so private, how come we see inbuilt ones so much in code? Get a namespace! Strings are not mutable - maybe there is a good reason for this but I have come across many situations where I would like to tweak one particular character ...

那些基于实现有意义但令人讨厌的……

array.sort()不返回数组(我认为它发生在原地) 列表/生成器推导式不定义新的作用域(只是for循环的语法糖，对吗?)

以及几个在Python 3中修复的

默认为整数除法 Global只能引用顶级名称空间

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

C#

我对c#非常满意，但这两个真的让我很恼火:

Constructor-based initialization for immutable classes is less convenient, less intuitive (when you read the code you don't understand what you assign to what), has less IDE backing than inline object initialization. This makes you lean towards mutable classes inevitably. I know this has been mentioned before, but I strictly have problems with initialization syntax for immutable classes. switch is too verbose. Whenever I see a situation where a switch would be proper, I'm really inclined to use an if..else if.. just because it's more terse (~30% less typing). I think there should be no fallthrough for switch, break should be implied, and case should allow comma separated list of values.