C(好吧，这不是我最喜欢的，但当时还没人做过。)

套接字库语法。 没有函数重载。 c风格的字符串。 缓冲区溢出。 神秘的语法。我不知道有多少次我查到像atoi这样的东西，拍着我的额头，然后大喊“当然!”

编辑:如果我使用更多的库代码(就像我用套接字做的那样，但那些特别糟糕)，我可能会想出更多的库代码，但我已经觉得我选择C语言是在作弊。许多语言的存在只是为了取C语言的好的部分，取代坏的部分，这有点像在徒劳无益。

PHP

没有构造函数重载 不一致的函数命名(str_replace，但strtolower) define()不像c++那样逐字替换全局变量。 在与XHTML组合时，像if-语句这样的语句必须以不缩进开始，即使为了保持XHTML缩进一致，XHTML是缩进的。

Ex:

你必须输入:

<?php
if($x == NULL)
{
?>
                     <p><?= $x . ' is null' ?></p>
<?php
}
?>

错误捕获非常糟糕

(不知道为什么又把5号改成了1号，随便了)

C:

Lack of distinction between function pointers (executable) and data pointers (you really don't want to execute this). Extreme unreadability. Making code look like it does what it does is orders of magnitude more difficult than making it do the task in the first place. Lack of clear support for lisp-think. Doing functional things is possible, barely, but it's not clear. Serious inconsistency between libraries about how error codes are returned. Antiquated string handling. The strings aren't strings, they're null-terminated blobs. This is all manner of wince-worthy.

Lisp:

()需要按shift键。每次我口齿不清的时候，我就把它和[]交换。

C++

The inconsistencies in the libraries related to char* and std::string. All C++ libs should take std::strings. Characters are not bytes with respect to iostream. I do a lot of byte-oriented work. Having a "byte" type and a "character" type would significantly make it simpler. That, too, would permit scaling to Unicode somewhat easier. Bit operations should be easy on a value. I should be able to access and set the n'th bit of a value without playing AND/OR dancing. The lack of a standardized interface for GUIs. This is where Microsoft has really been able to position themselves well with C#. A standard interface binding that OS makers provide would go really far for my work.

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.

Ruby

无类型推断 方法/函数不是一级对象 变量的范围不是词法的，尽管块变量的范围是词法的 Def内部的Def super和super()的区别