As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Say we have a function foo(), and a bool bar. The work foo does is of no use if bar is false. What is the most proper way to write foo()?
1
foo() {
if(!bar)
return;
doWork();
}
2
foo() {
if(bar)
doWork();
}
Option 1 has the aesthetic advantage that doWork() (ie, the rest of the function) is not indented, but the disadvantage that if you don't look at the early return statement, you may assume that doWork() is called every time you call foo().
In general, is it bad practice to code in style 1, or should it be a personal preference?
Some people will always say to you the "have a single exit point" mantra.
Sometimes, if you need to perform a specific operation on every exit point, it makes a lot of sense. I'd say it's crucial to keep sanity, in this specific case.
Now, if you doesn't have this need, I, personally, see no problem in just exiting as soon as you can and keeping the code on level of ident lower.
I've seen people wrapping the whole code in a do { ... } while (0); block just to keep the single exit point rule, using a break instead of a return. It drives me crazy. But it can be a useful device in some situation.
Overall, use common sense and use what makes more sense in your specific problem.
Style 1 is very useful for guarding statements. Like this:
void work() {
if (!something)
return;
//do the job
}
Otherwise, I would say it depends on the situation. If the if is tightly connected with the following logic, I will use style 2, otherwise I will usestyle 1.
To summarize: always use the one which makes your code more cleaner and readable.
My two cents' worth: If you keep your functions small, multiple returns aren't a real issue. In large functions (which probably should be refactored, but sometimes aren't), multiple return statements--especially from within nested control structures--start to behave like gotos, making the function more difficult to reason about.
The proper way to code a function is to have a single entry point and a single exit point. Doing this makes it easier to maintain and debug an application. Based on your examples, you should write code using the second style that you presented:
foo() {
if(bar)
doWork();
}
This a personal preference, and very subjective - you're likely to see any number of opinions on this. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with either style. Each displays control flow in a reasonable manner, and option 1 can actually be very useful in checking certain function parameters, etc.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been looking at the differences between Lucene 2.9 particular the redone tokenstream API and it just occurs to me its particularly ugly compared to the old just return a new or repopulate the given with values if your reusing said Token.
I have not done any profiling but it seems using a MAP to store attributes is not that efficient and it would be easier to just create a new value type holding values etc. The TokenStream and Attribute stuff looks like object pooling which is pretty much never necessary these days for simple value types like a Token of text.
creat()
When Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie received the 1983 Turing Award, after their respective acceptance speeches, someone in the audience asked Ken what he would do differently with Unix if he were to do it all over again. He said, "I'd spell 'creat' with an 'e'."
Livelink (OpenText) API
Everything comes back as some bizarre form of a jagged array
The documentation provides absolutely no examples
[your favorite search engine] typically returns no results for a given API method
The support forums feel near abandoned
The only reliable way of understanding the resultant data is to run the data in the Livelink debugger
And finally... the system costs tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars
The wall next to my desk has an imprint of my head...
A very simple example of getting a value out of an API method:
var workflow = new LAPI_Workflow(CurrentSession);
// every Livelink method uses an out variable
LLValue outValue;
// every method returns an integer that says if the call was
// a success or not, where 0 = success and any other integer
// is a failure... oh yeah, there is no reference to what any
// of the failure values mean, you have to create your own
// error dictionary.
int result = workflow.ListWorkTasks(workId, subWorkId, taskId, outValue);
if (result = 0)
{
// and now let's traverse through at least 3 different arrays!
string taskName = outValue.toValue(0).toValue("TASKS").toValue(0).toString("TaskName");
}
Aaack!!! :D
I've never been a fan of the java.sql package...
You have to catch the checked exception for everything, and there's only one exception, so it doesn't really give any indication of what went wrong without examining the SQL code String.
Add to that the fact that you have to use java.sql.Date instead of java.util.Data, so you always have to specify the full package for one or the other. Not to mention the conversion that has to take place between the two.
And then there's the parameter index, which is 1-base-indexed instead of the rest of Java, which is 0-base-indexed.
All in all, a pretty annoying library. Thankfully, the Spring library does make it quite a bit easier to work with.
COM. Its biggest improvements ended up being .NET.
Certain java.io.File methods, critical to systems programming, return a boolean to indicate success or failure. If such a method (like, say, mkdir or delete) fails, you have no way at all to find out why.
This always leaves my jaw a-hangin' open.
Java's date/time API is pretty horrible to work with. java.util.Date has several constructors to create an instance for a specific date, but all of them are deprecated. java.util.GregorianCalendar should be used instead, but that has an extremely annoying way of setting fields (think calendar.setField(GregorianCalendar.MONTH, 7) instead of calendar.setMonth(7) which would be far better). The finishing touch is that most other classes and libraries still expect a Date instead of a Calendar, so you have to constantly convert back and forth.
Not not a winner, but deserves a honourably mention; Android. Uses the Java 5 programming language, but barely any of the Java 5 language features. Instead of enums you get integer constants with prefix or suffix.
It can not quite decide if it should be object oriented, or procedural. Showing dialogs being a prime example. Several callbacks with self defined integer ids to display call upon the dialog, that smells of an old C API. And then you get an inner builder class class with chained methods, that smells of over architectured OOP of the worst kind.
The MotionEvent class have X and Y coordinates as absolute and relative values from the same accessory method. But no way to check what kind of coordinates it currently holds.
Android sure is a mixed bag.
I'm going to turn this question on its head and name a beautiful API for a library whose standard API is mostly ugly: the Haskell bindings for OpenGL.
These are the reasons:
Instead of lumping everything into a small number of headers, the library is organized logically into discrete modules, whose contents parallel the structure of the OpenGL specification. This makes browsing the documentation a pleasant experience.
Pairs of "begin/end" functions are replaced by higher-order procedures. For example, instead of
pushMatrix();
doSomeStuff();
doSomeMoreStuff();
popMatrix();
you'd say
preservingMatrix $ do
doSomeStuff
doSomeMoreStuff
The syntax of the bindings enforces the conventions of the library, instead of making you do it by hand. This works for the drawing primitives of quads, triangles, lines, etc. as well. All of this is exception-safe, of course.
Getters and setters are replaced by idiomatic "StateVars", making reading and writing a more symmetric operation.
Multiple versions of functions replaced by polymorphism and extra datatypes. Instead of calling, say, glVertex2f with two float values, you call vertex with a value of type Vertex2 GLFloat.
References:
API Reference
The HaskellWiki page on OpenGL
Beautiful Code, Compelling Evidence (pdf)
Praise from Scott Dillard, quoted in Beautiful Code, Compelling Evidence
Direct3D!
No doubt the old pre-Direct3D 5 interface was pretty darn fugly:
// GL code
glBegin (GL_TRIANGLES);
glVertex (0,0,0);
glVertex (1,1,0);
glVertex (2,0,0);
glEnd ();
// D3D code, tonnes of crap removed
v = &buffer.vertexes[0];
v->x = 0; v->y = 0; v->z = 0;
v++;
v->x = 1; v->y = 1; v->z = 0;
v++;
v->x = 2; v->y = 0; v->z = 0;
c = &buffer.commands;
c->operation = DRAW_TRIANGLE;
c->vertexes[0] = 0;
c->vertexes[1] = 1;
c->vertexes[2] = 2;
IssueExecuteBuffer (buffer);
Its not too bad, nowadays - it only took Microsoft 10 versions to get it right...
I would say MFC, ATL and WTL. All 3 of these libraries use excessive hungarian notation, redefine data types for no apparent reason (CString redefined over and over) and are notoriously changed with each version of visual studio.
I like COM. It provides a component oriented architecture long before .NET was even developed. However, the expansion of COM into DCOM, its many wrappers like ATL and its general lack of comprehensive documentation make it the ugliest API i have to deal with at work.
Most certainly not the ugliest. There are probably so many, but Flex has a special place in hell. Specifically UIComponent which compared to the Sprite, feels like using a chainsaw to peel an apple. I believe Flex would have been much improved by using more lightweight objects and mixin-style features similar to how Dojo works on the Javascript side.
The ECMAScript/Actionscript Date class is all but backwards and useless. It's been a constant pain any time I've needed to do something more complex than add timestamps to logs. They need more parsing options (e.g., the ability to specify the input format), and better time management, like intelligent increments, convenience functions, etc...
C++ STL libraries (and templates in general), while obviously useful, have always felt plain ugly. No suggestions for improvements though. They work.
Oracle's ProC, ProAda, Pro*this-that-the-other things. They were a preprocessor front end for C, Ada, and Fortran, I think, maybe some others, that let you jam SQL into your source code.
They did also have a library which worked much better, and was much more flexible.
(That was more than 10 years ago, I have no idea what they do now, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was still the same, just so as not to break people's code.)
well, it was a well-known library about 20 years ago, but i think the original btrieve data engine has the worst api ever written. almost everything goes through a single call, with each of its many parameters containing a different value depending on which call you're really doing (one parameter was a flag telling the system if you wanted to open a file, close a file, search, insert, etc). i liked btrieve way back then, but i spent a long time making a good abstraction layer.
it could have been easily improved by not forcing everything into one call. not only was the one call hideous, but the programmer was responsible for allocating, passing in, and freeing the position block ... some memory used by btrieve to track the open file handle, position, etc. another improvement would be to allow ascii text to be used when defining the indexing. indices had to be specified by a convoluted binary representation.
best regards,
don
A lot of the CRT library functions are poorly or vaguely named possibly due to legacy coding restrictions back in the day and thus require frequent use of the F1 key for people to find the right function and supply the right arguments.
I've been using CRT functions for a while and I still find myself hitting F1 a fair amount.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Foundations of F# and Expert F# are probably the two most prevalent books used to learn f#.
Both were written at the time of the 1.9.2/1.9.3 releases.
The website for the Expert book has some errata and details some of the changes in the 2008 CTP release which were relatively minor.
However the CTP release for the 2010 beta (and the corresponding 2008 compatible release) 1.9.6.16 changes much more.
Since the MSDN documentation is largely non existent, especially in terms of changes and data is scattered around blogs I am finding it harder and harder to rely on the current books (especially the expert one) since the f# landscape has shifted too much underneath it.
This question seeks to provide a (hopefully) comprehensive list of those areas which have changed and short details/links to further reading on how to deal with this.
As the basis for this I have added some issue which impacted myself.
The previously linked blog post lists many of the changes in terse form and is a good place to start but it doesn't cover everything by any means.
Attempting to keep to a specific aspect per answer would be sensible since this will make reading it easier.
In specific question form:
What changes have occurred to f# from 1.9.6.3 to 1.9.6.16 that render previous examples (especially dead tree documentation not amenable to easy correction) incorrect or deprecated and what remedial actions are possible.
The signature of Array.sort changed; it used to be in-place, whereas now it returns a fresh array and Array.sortInPlace sorts in place. (That's been a minor problem-point for customers; most other library-renames issues deprecation warnings that steer you in the right new direction, but in this case the function still works, but has a new signature, which can make this difficult to diagnose at-a-glance.)
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/manual/FSharp.Core/Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.Array.html
A number of books were written before FSharp.PowerPack.dll was split out of FSharp.Core.dll, so for many examples you need to ensure you've added a reference to the powerpack to gain access to certain library functions.
See also http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2008/08/29/detailed-release-notes-for-the-f-september-2008-ctp-release.aspx
Events
Expert F# Chapter 8 section: Events and Wiring
IEvent is entirely deprecated. Instead the various functions are defined on Event instead.
There is no longer any need to use create_HandlerEvent to make a completely compatible .Net event (one consumable from, say c# easily) instead you use the CLIEvent attribute.
If you make your event via DelegateEvent<T> then the resulting event is usable without requiring any reference to the FSharp.Core dll.
If you use Event<T> then you must include a reference to the FSharp core to be able to use it.
Naming convention changes
removal of most '_' within function names
removal of deprecated functions
Specific examples and their resolutions
List
reduce_left to reduce
Seq
sort_by to sortBy
group_by to groupBy
init_finite to init
Several functions including cons and generate_using removed
Array
scan1_left to scanReduce
reduce_left to reduce
Multiple types have moved from being part of the dedicated F# runtime (child namespace of Microsoft.FSharp, in assembly FSharp.Core):
bigint now an alias for System.Numerics.BigInteger.
Tuple is now System.Tuple
#light
#light is the default, as a result some examples online will not compile.
This has a relatively minor impact since most examples used #light anyway.
Syntax changes
with member ... and support removed. Use explicit member this.Foo for each
1.9.4 changes
the change to Symmetric Operator Overloading.
subtle changes to the handling of nulls with boxing and option types
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I've read some of the recent language vs. language questions with interest... Perl vs. Python, Python vs. Java, Can one language be better than another?
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of us have very superficial reasons for disliking languages. We notice these things at first glance and they turn us off. We shun what are probably perfectly good languages as a result of features that we'd probably learn to love or ignore in 2 seconds if we bothered.
Well, I'm as guilty as the next guy, if not more. Here goes:
Ruby: All the Ruby example code I see uses the puts command, and that's a sort of childish Yiddish anatomical term. So as a result, I can't take Ruby code seriously even though I should.
Python: The first time I saw it, I smirked at the whole significant whitespace thing. I avoided it for the next several years. Now I hardly use anything else.
Java: I don't like identifiersThatLookLikeThis. I'm not sure why exactly.
Lisp: I have trouble with all the parentheses. Things of different importance and purpose (function declarations, variable assignments, etc.) are not syntactically differentiated and I'm too lazy to learn what's what.
Fortran: uppercase everything hurts my eyes. I know modern code doesn't have to be written like that, but most example code is...
Visual Basic: it bugs me that Dim is used to declare variables, since I remember the good ol' days of GW-BASIC when it was only used to dimension arrays.
What languages did look right to me at first glance? Perl, C, QBasic, JavaScript, assembly language, BASH shell, FORTH.
Okay, now that I've aired my dirty laundry... I want to hear yours. What are your language hangups? What superficial features bother you? How have you gotten over them?
I hate Hate HATE "End Function" and "End IF" and "If... Then" parts of VB. I would much rather see a curly bracket instead.
PHP's function name inconsistencies.
// common parameters back-to-front
in_array(needle, haystack);
strpos(haystack, needle);
// _ to separate words, or not?
filesize();
file_exists;
// super globals prefix?
$GLOBALS;
$_POST;
I never really liked the keywords spelled backwards in some scripting shells
if-then-fi is bad enough, but case-in-esac is just getting silly
I just thought of another... I hate the mostly-meaningless URLs used in XML to define namespaces, e.g. xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
Pascal's Begin and End. Too verbose, not subject to bracket matching, and worse, there isn't a Begin for every End, eg.
Type foo = Record
// ...
end;
Although I'm mainly a PHP developer, I dislike languages that don't let me do enough things inline. E.g.:
$x = returnsArray();
$x[1];
instead of
returnsArray()[1];
or
function sort($a, $b) {
return $a < $b;
}
usort($array, 'sort');
instead of
usort($array, function($a, $b) { return $a < $b; });
I like object-oriented style. So it bugs me in Python to see len(str) to get the length of a string, or splitting strings like split(str, "|") in another language. That is fine in C; it doesn't have objects. But Python, D, etc. do have objects and use obj.method() other places. (I still think Python is a great language.)
Inconsistency is another big one for me. I do not like inconsistent naming in the same library: length(), size(), getLength(), getlength(), toUTFindex() (why not toUtfIndex?), Constant, CONSTANT, etc.
The long names in .NET bother me sometimes. Can't they shorten DataGridViewCellContextMenuStripNeededEventArgs somehow? What about ListViewVirtualItemsSelectionRangeChangedEventArgs?
And I hate deep directory trees. If a library/project has a 5 level deep directory tree, I'm going to have trouble with it.
C and C++'s syntax is a bit quirky. They reuse operators for different things. You're probably so used to it that you don't think about it (nor do I), but consider how many meanings parentheses have:
int main() // function declaration / definition
printf("hello") // function call
(int)x // type cast
2*(7+8) // override precedence
int (*)(int) // function pointer
int x(3) // initializer
if (condition) // special part of syntax of if, while, for, switch
And if in C++ you saw
foo<bar>(baz(),baaz)
you couldn't know the meaning without the definition of foo and bar.
the < and > might be a template instantiation, or might be less-than and greater-than (unusual but legal)
the () might be a function call, or might be just surrounding the comma operator (ie. perform baz() for size-effects, then return baaz).
The silly thing is that other languages have copied some of these characteristics!
Java, and its checked exceptions. I left Java for a while, dwelling in the .NET world, then recently came back.
It feels like, sometimes, my throws clause is more voluminous than my method content.
There's nothing in the world I hate more than php.
Variables with $, that's one extra odd character for every variable.
Members are accessed with -> for no apparent reason, one extra character for every member access.
A freakshow of language really.
No namespaces.
Strings are concatenated with ..
A freakshow of language.
All the []s and #s in Objective C. Their use is so different from the underlying C's native syntax that the first time I saw them it gave the impression that all the object-orientation had been clumsily bolted on as an afterthought.
I abhor the boiler plate verbosity of Java.
writing getters and setters for properties
checked exception handling and all the verbiage that implies
long lists of imports
Those, in connection with the Java convention of using veryLongVariableNames, sometimes have me thinking I'm back in the 80's, writing IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. at the top of my programs.
Hint: If you can automate the generation of part of your code in your IDE, that's a good hint that you're producing boilerplate code. With automated tools, it's not a problem to write, but it's a hindrance every time someone has to read that code - which is more often.
While I think it goes a bit overboard on type bureaucracy, Scala has successfully addressed some of these concerns.
Coding Style inconsistencies in team projects.
I'm working on a large team project where some contributors have used 4 spaces instead of the tab character.
Working with their code can be very annoying - I like to keep my code clean and with a consistent style.
It's bad enough when you use different standards for different languages, but in a web project with HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP and MySQL, that's 5 languages, 5 different styles, and multiplied by the number of people working on the project.
I'd love to re-format my co-workers code when I need to fix something, but then the repository would think I changed every line of their code.
It irritates me sometimes how people expect there to be one language for all jobs. Depending on the task you are doing, each language has its advantages and disadvantages. I like the C-based syntax languages because it's what I'm most used to and I like the flexibility they tend to bestow on the developer. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and having the power to write 150 line LINQ statements doesn't mean you should.
I love the inline XML in the latest version of VB.NET although I don't like working with VB mainly because I find the IDE less helpful than the IDE for C#.
If Microsoft had to invent yet another C++-like language in C# why didn't they correct Java's mistake and implement support for RAII?
Case sensitivity.
What kinda hangover do you need to think that differentiating two identifiers solely by caSE is a great idea?
I hate semi-colons. I find they add a lot of noise and you rarely need to put two statements on a line. I prefer the style of Python and other languages... end of line is end of a statement.
Any language that can't fully decide if Arrays/Loop/string character indexes are zero based or one based.
I personally prefer zero based, but any language that mixes the two, or lets you "configure" which is used can drive you bonkers. (Apache Velocity - I'm looking in your direction!)
snip from the VTL reference (default is 1, but you can set it to 0):
# Default starting value of the loop
# counter variable reference.
directive.foreach.counter.initial.value = 1
(try merging 2 projects that used different counter schemes - ugh!)
In no particular order...
OCaml
Tuples definitions use * to separate items rather than ,. So, ("Juliet", 23, true) has the type (string * int * bool).
For being such an awesome language, the documentation has this haunting comment on threads: "The threads library is implemented by time-sharing on a single processor. It will not take advantage of multi-processor machines. Using this library will therefore never make programs run faster." JoCaml doesn't fix this problem.
^^^ I've heard the Jane Street guys were working to add concurrent GC and multi-core threads to OCaml, but I don't know how successful they've been. I can't imagine a language without multi-core threads and GC surviving very long.
No easy way to explore modules in the toplevel. Sure, you can write module q = List;; and the toplevel will happily print out the module definition, but that just seems hacky.
C#
Lousy type inference. Beyond the most trivial expressions, I have to give types to generic functions.
All the LINQ code I ever read uses method syntax, x.Where(item => ...).OrderBy(item => ...). No one ever uses expression syntax, from item in x where ... orderby ... select. Between you and me, I think expression syntax is silly, if for no other reason than that it looks "foreign" against the backdrop of all other C# and VB.NET code.
LINQ
Every other language uses the industry standard names are Map, Fold/Reduce/Inject, and Filter. LINQ has to be different and uses Select, Aggregate, and Where.
Functional Programming
Monads are mystifying. Having seen the Parser monad, Maybe monad, State, and List monads, I can understand perfectly how the code works; however, as a general design pattern, I can't seem to look at problems and say "hey, I bet a monad would fit perfect here".
Ruby
GRRRRAAAAAAAH!!!!! I mean... seriously.
VB
Module Hangups
Dim _juliet as String = "Too Wordy!"
Public Property Juliet() as String
Get
Return _juliet
End Get
Set (ByVal value as String)
_juliet = value
End Set
End Property
End Module
And setter declarations are the bane of my existence. Alright, so I change the data type of my property -- now I need to change the data type in my setter too? Why doesn't VB borrow from C# and simply incorporate an implicit variable called value?
.NET Framework
I personally like Java casing convention: classes are PascalCase, methods and properties are camelCase.
In C/C++, it annoys me how there are different ways of writing the same code.
e.g.
if (condition)
{
callSomeConditionalMethod();
}
callSomeOtherMethod();
vs.
if (condition)
callSomeConditionalMethod();
callSomeOtherMethod();
equate to the same thing, but different people have different styles. I wish the original standard was more strict about making a decision about this, so we wouldn't have this ambiguity. It leads to arguments and disagreements in code reviews!
I found Perl's use of "defined" and "undefined" values to be so useful that I have trouble using scripting languages without it.
Perl:
($lastname, $firstname, $rest) = split(' ', $fullname);
This statement performs well no matter how many words are in $fullname. Try it in Python, and it explodes if $fullname doesn't contain exactly three words.
SQL, they say you should not use cursors and when you do, you really understand why...
its so heavy going!
DECLARE mycurse CURSOR LOCAL FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY
FOR
SELECT field1, field2, fieldN FROM atable
OPEN mycurse
FETCH NEXT FROM mycurse INTO #Var1, #Var2, #VarN
WHILE ##fetch_status = 0
BEGIN
-- do something really clever...
FETCH NEXT FROM mycurse INTO #Var1, #Var2, #VarN
END
CLOSE mycurse
DEALLOCATE mycurse
Although I program primarily in python, It irks me endlessly that lambda body's must be expressions.
I'm still wrapping my brain around JavaScript, and as a whole, Its mostly acceptable. Why is it so hard to create a namespace. In TCL they're just ugly, but in JavaScript, it's actually a rigmarole AND completely unreadable.
In SQL how come everything is just one, huge freekin SELECT statement.
In Ruby, I very strongly dislike how methods do not require self. to be called on current instance, but properties do (otherwise they will clash with locals); i.e.:
def foo()
123
end
def foo=(x)
end
def bar()
x = foo() # okay, same as self.foo()
x = foo # not okay, reads unassigned local variable foo
foo = 123 # not okay, assigns local variable foo
end
To my mind, it's very inconsistent. I'd rather prefer to either always require self. in all cases, or to have a sigil for locals.
Java's packages. I find them complex, more so because I am not a corporation.
I vastly prefer namespaces. I'll get over it, of course - I'm playing with the Android SDK, and Eclipse removes a lot of the pain. I've never had a machine that could run it interactively before, and now I do I'm very impressed.
Prolog's if-then-else syntax.
x -> y ; z
The problem is that ";" is the "or" operator, so the above looks like "x implies y or z".
Java
Generics (Java version of templates) are limited. I can not call methods of the class and I can not create instances of the class. Generics are used by containers, but I can use containers of instances of Object.
No multiple inheritance. If a multiple inheritance use does not lead to diamond problem, it should be allowed. It should allow to write a default implementation of interface methods, a example of problem: the interface MouseListener has 5 methods, one for each event. If I want to handle just one of them, I have to implement the 4 other methods as an empty method.
It does not allow to choose to manually manage memory of some objects.
Java API uses complex combination of classes to do simple tasks. Example, if I want to read from a file, I have to use many classes (FileReader, FileInputStream).
Python
Indentation is part of syntax, I prefer to use the word "end" to indicate end of block and the word "pass" would not be needed.
In classes, the word "self" should not be needed as argument of functions.
C++
Headers are the worst problem. I have to list the functions in a header file and implement them in a cpp file. It can not hide dependencies of a class. If a class A uses the class B privately as a field, if I include the header of A, the header of B will be included too.
Strings and arrays came from C, they do not provide a length field. It is difficult to control if std::string and std::vector will use stack or heap. I have to use pointers with std::string and std::vector if I want to use assignment, pass as argument to a function or return it, because its "=" operator will copy entire structure.
I can not control the constructor and destructor. It is difficult to create an array of objects without a default constructor or choose what constructor to use with if and switch statements.
In most languages, file access. VB.NET is the only language so far where file access makes any sense to me. I do not understand why if I want to check if a file exists, I should use File.exists("") or something similar instead of creating a file object (actually FileInfo in VB.NET) and asking if it exists. And then if I want to open it, I ask it to open: (assuming a FileInfo object called fi) fi.OpenRead, for example. Returns a stream. Nice. Exactly what I wanted. If I want to move a file, fi.MoveTo. I can also do fi.CopyTo. What is this nonsense about not making files full-fledged objects in most languages? Also, if I want to iterate through the files in a directory, I can just create the directory object and call .GetFiles. Or I can do .GetDirectories, and I get a whole new set of DirectoryInfo objects to play with.
Admittedly, Java has some of this file stuff, but this nonsense of having to have a whole object to tell it how to list files is just silly.
Also, I hate ::, ->, => and all other multi-character operators except for <= and >= (and maybe -- and ++).
[Disclaimer: i only have a passing familiarity with VB, so take my comments with a grain of salt]
I Hate How Every Keyword In VB Is Capitalized Like This. I saw a blog post the other week (month?) about someone who tried writing VB code without any capital letters (they did something to a compiler that would let them compile VB code like that), and the language looked much nicer!
My big hangup is MATLAB's syntax. I use it, and there are things I like about it, but it has so many annoying quirks. Let's see.
Matrices are indexed with parentheses. So if you see something like Image(350,260), you have no clue from that whether we're getting an element from the Image matrix, or if we're calling some function called Image and passing arguments to it.
Scope is insane. I seem to recall that for loop index variables stay in scope after the loop ends.
If you forget to stick a semicolon after an assignment, the value will be dumped to standard output.
You may have one function per file. This proves to be very annoying for organizing one's work.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I thought about it.