方案:

缺乏用户/社区小

objective - c 2.0

严格遵循语言和运行时，而不是库，并且没有任何特定的顺序:

Lack of cVars. No modules. I'm not terribly unhappy with a lack of namespaces, but modules would be nice to have. Ivar-based property syntax requires declarations using the variable name in 3 places. It's fairly hideous. C heritage. Anything to hate about the C language, except for OO and GC, is present. Objects can't live on the stack. Not a problem with Obj-C so much as what it does to programming practices in other languages. I find it strange when I get a return value on the stack in C++, for instance. If I'm not actually looking at the library documentation when I write the code, I'll assume that every function returns a pointer, which often makes for some siginificant cleanup later.

我不敢相信，我最讨厌的Python竟然还没被提到:

(Prior to 3.x) Relative imports look like absolute imports. import foo Does this import foo from the directory you're standing in or from the sys.path? Zipped eggs, leading to a sys.path full of shite. Zipped eggs means you can't use grep and find (to among other things debug problem 1)! Fortunately, there's pip. Use pip. Some of the included batteries are unpythonic. It grates to use them. Might be the fault of distro's and packagers, but still: sourcefile-encoding set to fscking ASCII on install/compile. WTF? Means I have to put the "# coding: UTF-8"-stuff in every single .py I ever make.

Py3k解决了我的其他几个讨厌的问题，例如坚持字符串是unicode的，8位的东西是不同的……

我最喜欢的是c#，但是已经有很多关于c#的答案了，所以我将选择我的下一个“最喜欢的”:

t - sql

The GO statement, and the fact that you need it for all manner of DDL/DML scripting, and the fact that it also breaks transaction semantics, making it far more difficult than it needs to be to write an atomic script, which you really need to have in order to upgrade a production database. Inconsistent semicolon semantics. 99% of the syntax doesn't need it, MERGE statement has to end with it, WITH statement has to begin with it... make up your mind! WITH CHECK CHECK / WITH NOCHECK CHECK. Uuuu-gly. Optional parameters in UDFs aren't really optional. Caller must specify DEFAULT (and don't even try using NULL instead). Compare to SPs where they are truly optional. "...may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths." HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE

Python,:

No switch keyword. And NO, dictionary is not a replacement for it. Not even a bunch of elif statements. Inconsistent line break handling. Why can I do: test = (1, 2, 3) And not: from itertools import cycle, islice, izip Why can't I do: if stuff \ and foo \ or bar: return "Formated string with %(arg)s" % \ {'arg': "bloody slash"} without using slashes? There is not one obvious and only one way to do it. Python fails on its motto just like Java failed on "Write once run anywhere". # what somebody from an another language would do if not test.has_key('foo'): test['foo'] = 0 n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what an agnostic beginer would do try: test['foo'] += 1 except KeyError: test['foo'] = 1 n = test['foo'] vs # what you end up after looking for dictionary default value in the python doc test.setdefault('foo', 0) n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what I would do n = test['foo'] = test.get('foo', 0) + 1 And the worst is that they don't do exactly the same thing. There are subtle differences. Choice between spaces and tabs. There should be no choice. Pick on, set it in stone and stop fighting. Why can you do that: test = {} test['foo'] = 0 but not: test = [] test[] = 0

附注:" ".join(l)是优秀的人。不要抱怨它，这并不明显，但考虑到迭代器模式，这是正确的方法。

我可以为Python添加另一个:

给定一个列表l = [l1, l2，…]， ln]，那么repr(l) = [repr(l1)， repr(l2)，…， repr(ln)]，但str(l) != [str(l1)， str(l2)，…， str(ln)] (str(l) = repr(l))。之所以这样做，是因为列表中可能有模糊的条目，如l = ["foo]， [bar，"， "]，["]， str(l)将返回"[foo]， [bar，]，[]"，这“可能会使用户感到困惑”。然而，这使得str不可能仅用于转储数据，因为list杀死了“仅以可读格式转储数据”。Augh !