但这只是因为VB6毒害了整整一代程序员

我在一个曾经是VB6商店的VB . net商店工作，而在这里工作的每一个曾经是VB6开发人员的人都顽固地拒绝学习任何关于. net的知识。他们编写的代码就像VB6一样，他们的应用程序就像VB6应用程序一样糟糕。我的老板非常不鼓励使用LINQ，因为她担心其他人很难理解，这是事实，因为没有人想要理解它。

我认为如果微软只使用c#，我们会过得更好，这让我很难受，因为我认为花括号远不如VB的冗长结束语句。

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!

我讨厌内梅尔的五个方面:

局部函数不能让步 编译lambda的能力有时取决于它是否内联 元组的值/引用类型语义不一致 数组下标和类型参数之间偶尔会出现歧义 缺乏普遍采用

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.

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

REBOL

REBOL是我最喜欢的语言之一。我不能说我有一个最喜欢的，尽管Haskell排名也很高。

Its odd syntax scares off many developers before they even give it a try. use [email rules url] [ ; A small DSL that sends email to people about URLs. rules: [ some [ into [ set email email! set url url! (send/subject email url reform [ "Check Out" url ]) ] ] ] ; Global context notify: func [ [catch] dsl [block!] ] [ unless parse dsl rules [ throw make error! "You screwed up somehow." ] ] ] notify [ [ a@b.com http://www.google.com ] [ b@c.com http://www.yahoo.com ] ] Recursive dialects are very easy to validate with PARSE but very difficult to evaluate. (Stacks can be helpful here.) REBOL has very poor integration with many popular technologies, particularly XML. I suspect this is partly arrogance, because the REBOL BLOCK! datatype can do almost everything XML can do. However, the real world has XML in it. No Unicode. Thanks to AltMe, REBOL's user community is very insular. I can understand why they want to use AltMe. It's written in REBOL and shows off its strengths. Unfortunately it also puts them off on their own little island.

即将到来的REBOL 3有望解决许多这些问题，除了最后一个。