很多人认为Java很慢，但我同意一定程度的使用。

Java是戏剧性的。他们为你想做的一件事提供了很多课程。但是你知道灵活性属性XD。

Java一开始很难，但总是很有趣。

当你写一个简单的代码打印“Hello,World!”请不要使用java !XD我相信我是有道理的。

Java是一种混合，所以不要说它是纯粹的面向对象语言。

还有很多，但我只局限于5个XD。谢谢!

我刚刚发现，在c#中创建泛型方法时，我不能使用Enum作为类型约束。

微软有一个足够好的解释，但仍然。我疯了

public static T MyFunc<T>(string arg) where T:Enum //wont work :(

我讨厌Java(目前它是我最喜欢的语言)的五个方面，排名不分先后。

As much as I am a fan of Java Generics, there are a lot of oddities that arise from the way it was designed. As such there a myriad of annoying limitations with generics (some of which are the result of type-erasure). The way Object.clone() and the Cloneable interfaces work is totally broken. Instead of taking the high-road and making everything an object (a.la. SmallTalk), Sun wimped out created two distinct categories of data-types: Objects and primitives. As a result there are now two representations for fundamental data types and wierd curiosities such as boxing/unboxing and not being able to put primitives in a Collection. Swing is too complex. Don't get me wrong: there's a lot of cool stuff one can do with Swing but it is a great example of over-engineering. This final complaint is equally the fault of Sun and those whom have written XML libraries for Java. Java XML libraries are way too complicated. In order to simply read in an XML file, I often have to worry about what parser I am using: DOM or SAX? The APIs for each is equally confusing. Native support in the language for easily parsing/writing XML would be very nice. java.util.Date sucks. Not only is it unnecessarily complicated but all the useful methods have been deprecated (and replaced with others that increase complexity).

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.)

方案:

缺乏用户/社区小

D

we have in operator, but no !in operator? dynamic array 'length' property - ya canna do array.length += 512; no exit statement - as in python's sys.exit(), etc. Sure, you can call C's exit, but unflushed output don't get flushed associative array literals + string literals suck string literals found as is inside an associative array literal are interpreted as static, thus this char[][char[]] hash = ["hello":"world","goodbye":"angels"]; doesn't work without some extra casting due to different length string literals despite a. I didn't ask it to be interpreted as static arrays b. static arrays aren't allowed in associative arrays anyways cyclic dependencies disallowed (want to port that java lib? Have fun redesigning the class hierarchy)

谁帮我检查一下;不确定它们是否都有意义。