C#

I wish I could switch() on any type, and that case could be any expression. Can't use object initializer syntax with 'readonly' fields / private set autoprops. Generally, I want language help with making immutable types. Use of {} for namespace and class and method and property/indexer blocks and multi-statement blocks and array initializers. Makes it hard to figure out where you are when they're far apart or mismatched. I hate writing (from x in y ... select).Z(). I don't want to have to fall back to method call syntax because the query syntax is missing something. I want a do clause on query syntax, which is like foreach. But it's not really a query then.

我真的到达这里了。我认为c#非常棒，而且很难发现它有什么缺陷。

C++

太容易随机破坏内存并创建几乎不可能找到的错误(尽管Valgrind在修复这个问题上走了很长的路)。 模板错误消息。 在使用模板时，很容易将所有内容都包含在一个文件中，然后进行愚蠢的编译。 标准库在现代是一个笑话(默认情况下仍然没有线程或网络?) 大量令人讨厌的C语言(特别是所有在short/int/unsigned/等之间的转换)。

C#

No easy way to check if a type is Numeric It means you are probably stuck using most of the microsoft stack, IIS and MSSQL Instead of being a specific tool for a specific problem, C# tries to be a language for every paradigm. Lack of community. Sure, there are starting to be open-source frameworks and libraries for C#. The same ones that have been available to Java developers for years. Hard to find good help. The internet is littered with poor examples of how to solve problems with C#. This goes back to problem #3.

Objective-C / Cocoa / Cocoa Touch:

Lack of namespaces Difficulty using primitive values with any of the interesting and powerful techniques of Cocoa, e.g., distributed objects, notifications, KVO Inconsistency with the use of the shortcut dot syntax for accessing properties, often having to use the full length accessors No GC on the iPhone, and generally GC came rather late to an otherwise highly dynamic language Inconsistent library support, at least in Cocoa Touch; some very basic things have only recently gotten high level support, e.g., audio handling. Lack of blocks!

Python

没有名称空间。 伪私有属性/名称混淆(主要使用getattr)。 文件路径操作分布在多个模块中。串在一起的os。路径调用是丑陋的，难以读取，并且在大多数情况下违反了DRY。常见的文件路径操作仍然没有方便的函数，比如获取目录下的文件列表。修复此问题的路径类型模块被拒绝。

([f for f in os.listdir('/file/path') if os.path.isfile(os.path. isfile)加入(/文件/路径,f))))

Python文档(我非常、非常、非常感谢有文档，而且它的格式很好，但我讨厌费力地在5000行快速入门使用示例中找到特定模块的单个函数文档(我正在查看optparse和logging))。内置类型在近10个不同的地方被零碎地记录。

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.