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.

Python:

缺少静态类型 默认参数处理(特别是可以为未来的调用者更改默认参数的事实!) 需要的下划线太多(构造函数必须调用__init__) 缺少适当的私有成员和函数(惯例只是说大多数以下划线开头的东西都是私有的，除了像__getattr__这样的东西不是) 有趣的打印到文件的语法(但他们在Python 3中修复了这个问题)

Groovy和Grails

动态类型 约定优于配置，假设您了解约定 你讨厌春天的一切 你讨厌Hibernate的一切 [Groovy]跨集合的常见操作不是(但最近的版本对此进行了改进)

TCL

这是我最喜欢的语言，几乎可以做任何事情。多年来，它已经(慢慢地，非常缓慢地)演变为解决大多数让我烦恼的事情。而且这门语言非常灵活，很容易实现语法来覆盖那些仍然困扰我的东西。但是语言中有一些东西是不能轻易改变的，只是打破了它的禅意:

Arrays (of the associative kind, what Perl calls hash) don't have proper value semantics. This makes them awkward to pass to and return from functions. Also, this means that they can't be nested. For this reason dicts (dictionaries) were invented but too late, the nice array access syntax: $array($foo) is now forever taken by stupid arrays for backwards compatibility. We're now stuck with: dict get $dict $foo which is much more verbose and to me feels less readable. No real closures. Though it can be emulated somewhat by globals or namespaces but that defeats the reason for closures in the first place. Although, I can't really see for now how closures can be implemented in a pure value semantics system. Teacup is hard to use and is not at all intuitive compared to all other repository tool out there. This is more ActiveState's fault than tcl-core and doesn't really break tcl's Zen when coding but it is still very annoying.

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。

我觉得最喜欢的语言是不可能选择的。动态类型和静态类型不能进行比较，所以我只列出我使用的是哪一种类型

C++:

Template metaprogramming syntax is ugly. An implicit ::value would make it much more concise ->. Why can't the compiler figure out that I'm doing a ptr.thing and just do -> for me? I hate whitespace. So the whole vector<vector<int>> has to be vector<vector<int> > makes me get the jitters and then I can't focus whenever I see that line of code and I end up trying to figure out a way to use int[][] or something Macros. I personally love the concept of macros. But with C++, I that the system is a hack I'm a hater of ;

Python:

字符串是不可变的。这样我就不能用string[4]="b" 通过引用隐式复制列表。哪个泄漏到[[0]*width]*height问题 缺少尾递归(每当我输入错误递归函数时，我必须安装IDLE以避免吐出1000条错误消息) 字典键不接受列表/字典 缺乏深度范围。当我做一个列表推导时，我不希望其中的变量影响到外部作用域