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

c# 4.0

“动态”关键字,被滥用的时机已经成熟。如果你想要/需要使用反射,使用并让它明显地显示你正在使用它,不要试图用动态来伪装它。

其他回答

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.

Haskell。

默认情况下导入Prelude。 类型类的范围是通用的。 模块不是一流的。 类型不能依赖于值。 单子不统一Functor。

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。

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

我自己最讨厌c++的5个地方:

自动生成构造函数、析构函数和赋值操作符。伙计,每当我在课上没有声明什么东西时,这意味着我不需要它,而不是我忘记了。你们这些编辑们,听到了吗?!

[4]模板语法。哦,我真的需要输入所有这些“<”和“>”,每当我决定从类主体提取定义?

[3]字符串。天啊,我受够了“const char*”,我必须处理NULL情况,我必须浪费O(N)来获得它的长度,我必须为concat操作分配缓冲区。

[2] Macroprocessing。每当我不明白,什么是我的编译器,我开始寻找宏。

[1]操作符重载。我看到代码“A + B * C”,在我看到A、B和C的实际类型之前,我说不出这个代码是关于什么的。