GCC hidden/little-known features

GCC hidden/little-known features - gcc

This is my attempt to start a collection of GCC special features which usually do not encounter. this comes after #jlebedev in the another question mentioned "Effective C++" option for g++,
-Weffc++
This option warns about C++ code which breaks some of the programming guidelines given in the books "Effective C++" and "More Effective C++" by Scott Meyers. For example, a warning will be given if a class which uses dynamically allocated memory does not define a copy constructor and an assignment operator. Note that the standard library header files do not follow these guidelines, so you may wish to use this option as an occasional test for possible problems in your own code rather than compiling with it all the time.
What other cool features are there?

From time to time I go through the current GCC/G++ command line parameter documentation and update my compiler script to be even more paranoid about any kind of coding error. Here it is if you are interested.
Unfortunately I didn't document them so I forgot most, but -pedantic, -Wall, -Wextra, -Weffc++, -Wshadow, -Wnon-virtual-dtor, -Wold-style-cast, -Woverloaded-virtual, and a few others are always useful, warning me of potentially dangerous situations. I like this aspect of customizability, it forces me to write clean, correct code. It served me well.
However they are not without headaches, especially -Weffc++. Just a few examples:
It requires me to provide a custom copy constructor and assignment operator if there are pointer members in my class, which are useless since I use garbage collection. So I need to declare empty private versions of them.
My NonInstantiable class (which prevents instantiation of any subclass) had to implement a dummy private friend class so G++ didn't whine about "only private constructors and no friends"
My Final<T> class (which prevents subclassing of T if T derived from it virtually) had to wrap T in a private wrapper class to declare it as friend, since the standard flat out forbids befriending a template parameter.
G++ recognizes functions that never return a return value, and throw an exception instead, and whines about them not being declared with the noreturn attribute. Hiding behind always true instructions didn't work, G++ was too clever and recognized them. Took me a while to come up with declaring a variable volatile and comparing it against its value to be able to throw that exception unmolested.
Floating point comparison warnings. Oh god. I have to work around them by writing x <= y and x >= y instead of x == y where it is acceptable.
Shadowing virtuals. Okay, this is clearly useful to prevent stupid shadowing/overloading problems in subclasses but still annoying.
No previous declaration for functions. Kinda lost its importance as soon as I started copypasting the function declaration right above it.
It might sound a bit masochist, but as a whole, these are very cool features that increased my understanding of C++ and general programming.
What other cool features G++ has? Well, it's free, open, it's one of the most widely used and modern compilers, consistently outperforms its competitors, can eat almost anything people throw at it, available on virtually every platform, customizable to hell, continuously improved, has a wide community - what's not to like?

A function that returns a value (for example an int) will return a random value if a code path is followed that ends the function without a 'return value' statement. Not paying attention to this can result in exceptions and out of range memory writes or reads.
For example if a function is used to obtain the index into an array, and the faulty code path is used (the one that doesn't end with a return 'value' statement) then a random value will be returned which might be too big as an index into the array, resulting in all sorts of headaches as you wrongly mess up the stack or heap.

Related

Why isn't std::move a keyword in C++?

Obviously, move semantics/r-value references were a much needed addition in C++11. One thing that has always bugged me though, is std::move. The purpose of std::move is to transform an l-value into an r-value. And yet, the compiler is perfectly happy to let you continue using that value as an l-value and you get to find out at runtime that you screwed up.
It seems like there is a missed opportunity to define move (or some other name) as a keyword (similar to *_cast) and actually have the compiler understand that the referenced value can no longer be used as an l-value here. I'm sure there is some implementation work to do this, but is there some fundamental reason why this wasn't done?

In C++, moved-from objects in are still objects. They can be used. They are usually in a defined state.
There are some optimizations you can do when you are willing to 'rip the guts' out of an object and use it elsewhere. The C++ committee decided these optimizations should be done implicitly and automatically in a few cases; usually where elision was already permitted, but where it wouldn't work for whatever reason.
Then, the ability to explicitly do this was added. Making this operation end the lifetime of its right hand side would complicate the lifetime rules of C++ to an extreme degree; rather than doing that, they noted they could be highly efficient without complicating the lifetime rules of C++ and leaving them exactly as-is.
It turns out there are a handful of flaws in this; to this extent, C++20 may be adding some "move and destroy the source" operations. In particular, a number of move-construction like operations are easier to write as nothrow if you can both move and destroy the source in one fell swoop.
Actually having it change the lifetime of automatic storage variables is not in the cards. Even describing how such a change would work, let alone making sure it doesn't break anything horribly, would be a challenge.
A simple example of why having it always happen wouldn't be good might be:
Foo foo;
if (some_condition) {
bar = std::move(foo);
}
the lifetime of foo is now a function of some_condition? You'd either have to ban the above with that kind of construct, or go down a pit of madness you may never get out of.

What is the difference between Form5!ProgressBar.Max and Form5.ProgressBar.Max?

I'm looking at a piece of very old VB6, and have come across usages such as
Form5!ProgressBar.Max = time_max
and
Form5!ProgressBar.Value = current_time
Perusing the answer to this question here and reading this page here, I deduce that these things mean the same as
Form5.ProgressBar.Max = time_max
Form5.ProgressBar.Value = current_time
but it isn't at all clear that this is the case. Can anyone confirm or deny this, and/or point me at an explanation in words of one syllable?

Yes, Form5!ProgressBar is almost exactly equivalent to Form5.ProgressBar
As far as I can remember there is one difference: the behaviour if the Form5 object does not have a ProgressBar member (i.e. the form does not have a control called ProgressBar). The dot-notation is checked at compile time but the exclamation-mark notation is checked at run time.
Form5.ProgressBar will not compile.
Form5!ProgressBar will compile but will give an error at runtime.
IMHO the dot notation is preferred in VB6, especially when accessing controls. The exclamation mark is only supported for backward-compatibility with very old versions of VB.

The default member of a Form is (indirectly) the Controls collection.
The bang (!) syntax is used for collection access in VB, and in many cases the compiler makes use of it to early bind things that otherwise would be accessed more slowly through late binding.
Far from deprecated, it is often preferable.
However in this case since the default member of Form objects is [_Default] As Object containing a reference to a Controls As Object instance, there is no particular advantage or disadvantage to this syntax over:
Form5("ProgressBar").Value
I agree that in this case however it is better to more directly access the control as a member of the Form as in:
Form5.ProgressBar.Value
Knowing the difference between these is a matter of actually knowing VB. It isn't simply syntactic though, the two "paths" do different things that get to the same result.
Hopefully this answer offers an explanation rather merely invoking voodoo.

Suggestions for using attributes beyond [[noreturn]]?

Coming from the discussions about the use of vendor specific attributes in another question I asked myself, "what rules should we tell people for using attributes that are not listed in the standard"?
The two attributes that are defined are [[ noreturn ]] and [[ carries_dependencies ]]. The standard leaves open how compilers should react on unknown attributes -- thus, by the standard they may stop with an error message. This is not what e.g. GCC does, it emits a warning and continues. This is probably a behavior to be expected by the most-common compilers. For this reason I would have like to read a "should" in the standard, but we don't have it.
The paper N2553 brings up flexible attributes. It lists further attributes used by GCC (
unused, weak) and MSVC (dllimport). for OpenMP, the widely supported parallelizing framework, scoped attributes are suggested, eg. omp::for(clause, clause), omp::parallel(clause,clause). So, it is very likely that we will se some vendor specific attributes very soon after they support the syntax at all, indeed.
Therefore, when we now go "out in the world" and tell people about C++11, what should the advice be about using attributes?
Only use noreturn and carries_dependencies
Use your compilers old syntax instead, eg. __attribute__((noreturn)) and define a macro when you port the code (the current situation)
Use those attributes your favorite compiler supports freely, knowing this code might not be portable to another standard-conforming compiler, because if the standard allows a compiler to stop with an error, you have to consider this will happen. This sounds a bit like advocating writing non-portable code.
Or, my guess, expect the most-used compilers to warn about unknown attributes, so you can use vendor-specific attributes, keeping in mind that in rare cases you may get problems.
Note the slight difference in the last two bullet-items. While both say "use those attributes you need", item3's message is "do not care about other compilers", while item4 implicitly rephrases the standard texts "implementation defined behavior" to "the compiler should emit a diagnostic message".
What could be the suggestion for an upcoming Best Practice here?

The best practice — the only one that is reasonably portable in practical terms, never mind ambiguity in the Standard — is to use macros. It will be many years before we can forget about compilers that don't support attributes.
The number of compilers and the number of custom __keywords__ defined by those compilers will always be increasing, and it makes sense for the language to define a way to contain the damage. It doesn't need to revolutionize the way people write unportable code, or make unportable code portable (although standard attributes do that). There is a benefit simply to giving caffeine-addled compiler backend engineers a sandbox for when they want to extend the grammar.
It is a bit alarming, though, that no attribute tokens are reserved to the implementation, or to the language besides the ones currently standard. So there will be trouble when they decide to standardize more of them.

Why isn't DRY considered a good thing for type declarations?

It seems like people who would never dare cut and paste code have no problem specifying the type of something over and over and over. Why isn't it emphasized as a good practice that type information should be declared once and only once so as to cause as little ripple effect as possible throughout the source code if the type of something is modified? For example, using pseudocode that borrows from C# and D:
MyClass<MyGenericArg> foo = new MyClass<MyGenericArg>(ctorArg);
void fun(MyClass<MyGenericArg> arg) {
gun(arg);
}
void gun(MyClass<MyGenericArg> arg) {
// do stuff.
}
Vs.
var foo = new MyClass<MyGenericArg>(ctorArg);
void fun(T)(T arg) {
gun(arg);
}
void gun(T)(T arg) {
// do stuff.
}
It seems like the second one is a lot less brittle if you change the name of MyClass, or change the type of MyGenericArg, or otherwise decide to change the type of foo.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of disagreement with your argument that the latter example is "better" for the programmer. A lot of language design features are there because they're better for the compiler implementer!
See Scala for one reification of your idea.
Other languages (such as the ML family) take type inference much further, and create a whole style of programming where the type is enormously important, much more so than in the C-like languages. (See The Little MLer for a gentle introduction.)

It isn't considered a bad thing at all. In fact, C# maintainers are already moving a bit towards reducing the tiring boilerplate with the var keyword, where
MyContainer<MyType> cont = new MyContainer<MyType>();
is exactly equivalent to
var cont = new MyContainer<MyType>();
Although you will see many people who will argue against var usage, which kind of shows that many people is not familiar with strong typed languages with type inference; type inference is mistaken for dynamic/soft typing.

Repetition may lead to more readable code, and sometimes may be required in the general case. I've always seen the focus of DRY being more about duplicating logic than repeating literal text. Technically, you can eliminate 'var' and 'void' from your bottom code as well. Not to mention you indicate scope with indentation, why repeat yourself with braces?
Repetition can also have practical benefits: parsing by a program is easier by keeping the 'void', for example.
(However, I still strongly agree with you on prefering "var name = new Type()" over "Type name = new Type()".)

It's a bad thing. This very topic was mentioned in Google's Go language Techtalk.

Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."
Your complaint makes no sense in the case of a dynamically typed language, so you must intend this to refer to statically typed languages. In that case, your replacement example implicitly uses Generics (aka Template Classes), which means that any time that fun or gun is used, a new definition based upon the type of the argument. That could result in dozens of extra methods, regardless of the intent of the programmer. In particular, you're throwing away the benefit of compiler-checked type-safety for a runtime error.
If your goal was to simply pass through the argument without checking its type, then the correct type would be Object not T.
Type declarations are intended to make the programmer's life simpler, by catching errors at compile-time, instead of failing at runtime. If you have an overly complex type definition, then you probably don't understand your data. In your example, I would have suggested adding fun and gun to MyClass, instead of defining them separately. If fun and gun don't apply to all possible template types, then they should be defined in an explicit subclass, not as separate functions that take a templated class argument.
Generics exist as a way to wrap behavior around more specific objects. List, Queue, Stack, these are fine reasons for Generics, but at the end of the day, the only thing you should be doing with a bare Generic is creating an instance of it, and calling methods on it. If you really feel the need to do more than that with a Generic, then you probably need to embed your Generic class as an instance object in a wrapper class, one that defines the behaviors you need. You do this for the same reason that you embed primitives into a class: because by themselves, numbers and strings do not convey semantic information about their contents.
Example:
What semantic information does List convey? Just that you're working with multiple triples of integers. On the other hand, List, where a color has 3 integers (red, blue, green) with bounded values (0-255) conveys the intent that you're working with multiple Colors, but provides no hint as to whether the List is ordered, allows duplicates, or any other information about the Colors. Finally a Palette can add those semantics for you: a Palette has a name, contains multiple Colors, but no duplicates, and order isn't important.
This has gotten a bit far afield from the original question, but what it means to me is that DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) means specifying information once, but that specification should be as precise as is necessary.

What are your language "hangups"? [closed]

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.

Develop Reference

ruby bash windows laravel spring algorithm oracle macos go visual-studio