最近Stack Overflow上有一群讨厌perl的人,所以我想我应该把我的“关于你最喜欢的语言你讨厌的五件事”的问题带到Stack Overflow上。拿你最喜欢的语言来说,告诉我你讨厌它的五件事。这些可能只是让你烦恼的事情,承认的设计缺陷,公认的性能问题,或任何其他类别。你只需要讨厌它,它必须是你最喜欢的语言。

不要拿它和其他语言比较,也不要谈论你已经讨厌的语言。不要用你最喜欢的语言谈论你喜欢的事情。我只是想听到你讨厌但能容忍的东西,这样你就可以使用所有其他的东西,我想听到你希望别人使用的语言。

每当有人试图把他们最喜欢的语言强加给我时,我就会问这个问题,有时是面试问题。如果有人找不出他最喜欢的工具的5个缺点,那他对它还不够了解,不能提倡它,也不能利用它赚大钱。他还没有在足够多的不同情况下使用它来充分探索它。他把它作为一种文化或宗教来倡导,这意味着如果我不选择他最喜欢的技术,我就错了。

我不在乎你用什么语言。不想使用特定的语言?那就不要。你通过尽职调查做出了明智的选择,但仍然没有使用它?好吧。有时正确的答案是“你有一个强大的编程团队,有良好的实践和丰富的Bar经验。改成Foo是愚蠢的。”


This is a good question for code reviews too. People who really know a codebase will have all sorts of suggestions for it, and those who don't know it so well have non-specific complaints. I ask things like "If you could start over on this project, what would you do differently?" In this fantasy land, users and programmers get to complain about anything and everything they don't like. "I want a better interface", "I want to separate the model from the view", "I'd use this module instead of this other one", "I'd rename this set of methods", or whatever they really don't like about the current situation. That's how I get a handle on how much a particular developer knows about the codebase. It's also a clue about how much of the programmer's ego is tied up in what he's telling me.

憎恨并不是衡量人们了解多少的唯一尺度,但我发现它是一个相当不错的尺度。他们讨厌的事情也让我知道他们对这个话题的思考有多好。


当前回答

Ruby。

Strange scoping rules - variables, constants, and methods each behave differently from each other. The rules change also depending on which keyword you used to create a closure. Or on whether you're in a class, eigenclass, object, module, or module's self. Then there's instance_eval, which changes the rules to a different set of rules. And they change again when a module is "included" or "extended", which themselves do different things to scope. And some sets of rules can't be emulated by metaprogramming, so you have to use eval. Unless you're on ruby 1.9, where all of this is different. Namespacing is basically useless. If you have Foo::File, then the stdlib File is probably broken for all of Foo. require statement is broken. If two files require eachother, the behavior of those files can change dramatically depending on which is loaded first from elsewhere. libraries change APIs dramatically and suddenly, so you have to require specific minor revision numbers of all of your dependencies. For every single ruby application on your system. The rubygems package system overrides "require" rather than putting files in the search path - because why use a system when you can replace it?

其他回答

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;
        }
    }
}

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。

Delphi(又名Object Pascal),我将讨论本机版本,而不是。net。

Var块! 语言中的接口在设计时就考虑到了COM的使用——因此比c#或Java要复杂得多。ie。涉及引用计数,除非显式禁用它。 没有尝试,只有最终结束; 对象创建过于显式: var obj: TMyObject; ... obj:= TMyObject.Create; 试一试 ... 最后 obj.Free; 结束;

而是像这样

auto obj: TMyObject; // compiler adds the default constructor call and the destructor call in a try/finally block. 

好吧,语言太好了,我真的想不出更多,所以我在这里强迫自己:内置类型,如字符串,整数..或者枚举最好有方法。ie。i. tostring代替IntToStr(i)。

我偶尔会用我喜欢的PHP,而Python会用得太多。

No namespace; everything is in a kind of very big namespace which is hell in bigger environments Lack of standards when it comes to functions: array functions take a needle as a first argument, haystack as second (see array_search). String functions often take the haystack first, needle second (see strpos). Other functions just use different naming schemes: bin2hex, strtolower, cal_to_jd Some functions have weird return values, out of what is normal: This forces you to have a third variable declared out of nowhere while PHP could efficiently interpret an empty array as false with its type juggling. There are near no other functions doing the same. $var = preg_match_all('/regexp/', $str, $ret); echo $var; //outputs the number of matches print_r($ret); //outputs the matches as an array The language (until PHP6) does its best to respect a near-retarded backward compatibility, making it carry bad practices and functions around when not needed (see mysql_escape_string vs. mysql_real_escape_string). The language evolved from a templating language to a full-backend one. This means anybody can output anything when they want, and it gets abused. You end up with template engines for a templating language... It sucks at importing files. You have 4 different ways to do it (include, include_once, require, require_once), they are all slow, very slow. In fact the whole language is slow. At least, pretty slower than python (even with a framework) and RoR from what I gather.

不过,我仍然喜欢PHP。这是网页开发的电锯:你想要一个小型到中型网站的速度非常快,并确保任何人都可以托管它(尽管配置可能不同)?PHP就在那里,它无处不在,只需要5分钟就可以安装一个完整的LAMP或WAMP堆栈。好吧,我现在要回去用Python工作了……

Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.

Perl

Mixed use of sigils my @array = ( 1, 2, 3 ); my $array = [ 4, 5, 6 ]; my $one = $array[0]; # not @array[0], you would get the length instead my $four = $array->[0]; # definitely not $array[0] my( $two, $three ) = @array[1,2]; my( $five, $six ) = @$array[1,2]; # coerce to array first my $length_a = @array; my $length_s = @$array; my $ref_a = \@array; my $ref_s = $array; For example none of these are the same: $array[0] # First element of @array @array[0] # Slice of only the First element of @array %array[0] # Syntax error $array->[0] # First element of an array referenced by $array @array->[0] # Deprecated first element of @array %array->[0] # Invalid reference $array{0} # Element of %array referenced by string '0' @array{0} # Slice of only one element of %array referenced by string '0' %array{0} # Syntax error $array->{0} # Element of a hash referenced by $array @array->{0} # Invalid reference %array->{0} # Deprecated Element of %array referenced by string '0' In Perl6 it is written: my @array = ( 1, 2, 3 ); my $array = [ 4, 5, 6 ]; my $one = @array[0]; my $four = $array[0]; # $array.[0] my( $two, $three ) = @array[1,2]; my( $five, $six ) = $array[1,2]; my $length_a = @array.length; my $length_s = $array.length; my $ref_a = @array; my $ref_s = $array; Lack of true OO package my_object; # fake constructor sub new{ bless {}, $_[0] } # fake properties/attributes sub var_a{ my $self = shift @_; $self->{'var_a'} = $_[0] if @_; $self->{'var_a'} } In Perl6 it is written: class Dog is Mammal { has $.name = "fido"; has $.tail is rw; has @.legs; has $!brain; method doit ($a, $b, $c) { ... } ... } Poorly designed regex features /(?=regexp)/; # look ahead /(?<=fixed-regexp)/; # look behind /(?!regexp)/; # negative look ahead /(?<!fixed-regexp)/; # negative look behind /(?>regexp)/; # independent sub expression /(capture)/; # simple capture /(?:don't capture)/; # non-capturing group /(?<name>regexp)/; # named capture /[A-Z]/; # character class /[^A-Z]/; # inverted character class # '-' would have to be the first or last element in # the character class to include it in the match # without escaping it /(?(condition)yes-regexp)/; /(?(condition)yes-regexp|no-regexp)/; /\b\s*\b/; # almost matches Perl6's <ws> /(?{ print "hi\n" })/; # run perl code In Perl6 it is written: / <?before pattern> /; # lookahead / <?after pattern> /; # lookbehind / regexp :: pattern /; # backtracking control / ( capture ) /; # simple capture / $<name>=[ regexp ] /; # named capture / [ don't capture ] /; # non-capturing group / <[A..Z]> /; # character class / <-[A..Z]> /; # inverted character class # you don't generally use '.' in a character class anyway / <ws> /; # Smart whitespace match / { say 'hi' } /; # run perl code Lack of multiple dispatch sub f( int $i ){ ... } # err sub f( float $i ){ ... } # err sub f($){ ... } # occasionally useful In Perl6 it is written: multi sub f( int $i ){ ... } multi sub f( num $i ){ ... } multi sub f( $i where $i == 0 ){ ... } multi sub f( $i ){ ... } # everything else Poor Operator overloading package my_object; use overload '+' => \&add, ... ; In Perl6 it is written: multi sub infix:<+> (Us $us, Them $them) | (Them $them, Us $us) { ... }