Your Language's Worst!

[MeTh0Dz]

I am clearly aware of it

Why would you post about an esoteric language in a thread about bad features in languages?

It is by definition not meant for conventional programming tasks and thus can't really have _bad_ features.

[outsid3r]

1. Header files: ancient compile/link model taken from 70's. Modularity based on text file inclusion.
2. Templates: slow compile times, code bloat, scarying error messages, covariance tricky to get right
3. Weak and overcomplicated type system that is pretending a strong one.

You keep bashing C++, but everything you just described makes me assume that you don't know what a low level language is and what evil means.

[JCoder]

Look at what you said.



This implies that Scala's implicit conversions are the most powerful concept in any language, not that they are just the most powerful implicits.

It's important to convey your point properly.

Ok, I was a bit unclear. I meant there is no feature corresponding to Scala's implicits in any other language I know (including C++ and C#). They are a totally new, unique concept. Scala's implicits alone have "power" similar to inheritance in OO languages or templates in C++. They are not just another syntactic sugar feature (like there are many in C#) that saves you a few keystrokes.

You keep bashing C++, but everything you just described makes me assume that you don't know what a low level language is and what evil means.

So what? Will you post 3 worst of the worst things of any low level language?
I've done tons of low level assembly code for 80C51, and coding for bare metal was so much easier. You just need some knowledge of electronics + a few schematics and a short reference of the instruction set. Things you can get into in a week or less. You could write a device driver in an hour and debug it by using oscilloscope.

[BlaineSch]

Ah, I often get annoyed at PHP functions... they are inconsistent! For example:

array_push($array, $el, $el...); // allows endless amounts of new elements 

This seems good so far, but then when you look at other array functions...

in_array($el, $array); 

The first example, if you want to keep it so that it takes on an endless number of arguments that is the only format, however in_array could easily be switched around to make it more consistent and it would not effect anything.... I often times see my referencing back to php.net for functions I don't use as often.

Another, when drawling rectangles you supply the x,y of the top left corner and the bottom right corner... when drawling a circle you specify the x,y of the center of the circle and the height/width. I made a function to accept the x,y of the top left and bottom right corners and convert it, but this should also be consistent!

imagefilledrectangle()
ImageFilledEllipse()

[Red_Shadow]

On Common Lisp:
I'm sorry, I can't do it. I honestly can't think of anything I *don't* like in CL.
(EDIT):
Oh wait:
No proper socket libs
No way to write truly portable code - implementation specific is the best you can do
No easy way to include libs

On Perl:
Interpreted only - Big apps aren't practical.
Ugly code. *Very* ugly code.
Confusing, undocumented, several lines long regexp. For no apparent reason.
cpan modules that don't work.