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#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.

其他回答

Python:

处理数字太慢了。这不是什么大问题,除非…… 不能简单地在程序中包含导入时自动编译的C代码。 在py3k接管之前,我们仍然要忍受愚蠢的整数除法规则。 在py3k接管之前,像imap和izip这样的好东西仍然存在于一个单独的模块中。 在py3k接管之前,我们还有很多工作要做。

c++缺乏好的重构工具,缺乏受控异常

Java缺少模板,缺少const关键字

我讨厌Java的五个方面:

没有一级函数。 没有类型推断。 缺乏理智的默认值在eg图形。 NullPointerException不包含更多关于什么是null的信息。 毫无意义的“可配置”框架/服务提供者接口/工厂类/依赖注入系统的激增。可配置性几乎从未使用过,严重违反了DRY,代码的大小增加了四倍,易读性减少了一半。

我知道,我应该试试Scala。

c#中缺少预处理器。

我知道他们把它放在一边是因为有些人会滥用它,但我认为他们把孩子和洗澡水一起倒掉了。代码生成被认为是一件好事,在c++中,预处理程序是我的第一个代码生成器。

C#

它是一种很棒的语言,特别是在LINQ中,但是与c++相比泛型支持较差。它有如此多的潜力,但目前的实现只对强类型集合和类似的琐碎事情有用。下面举几个例子:

A generic argument cannot be restricted to enums (only classes or structs). A generic argument cannot be a static class. Why? This seems like a completely artifical restriction. You cannot specify that a generic type must have a constructor with a certain signature because you cannot have constructors on interfaces. Why not? It's just another method with the special name ".ctor". Similarly, you cannot specify that a generic type must have a static method, because those also cannot be declared on interface. Something like static T Parse(string s) would often come in useful. The compiler is too eager in prohibiting some casts which the programmer knows would actually work, so they require uglyness like (TheRealType)(object)value No covariance, eg. IList<string> cannot be converted to IList<object>, even though string[] can be converted to object[]. (Microsoft might be fixing this in C# 4.0, though.)