objective - c

1)没有命名空间，只有手动命名约定——我不介意在类分离方面，但我确实怀念能够在一行命名空间中导入所有类定义(如import com.me.somelibrary.*)。

2)库在像RegEx支持这样的重要领域仍然存在一些漏洞。

3)属性语法有点笨拙，需要三行(在两个单独的文件中)来声明一个属性。

4)我喜欢保留/释放模式，但它比应该的更容易释放一个引用，然后意外地使用它。

5)虽然不是真正的语言特性，但Xcode与Objective-C的使用是如此交织在一起，我不禁想到这方面……基本上自动补全，是很可疑的。它更像是一个奖励你找到你想要的东西的系统，然后把它作为一个选择。但我想我从来都不喜欢自动补全引擎。

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.

C#

I wish I could switch() on any type, and that case could be any expression. Can't use object initializer syntax with 'readonly' fields / private set autoprops. Generally, I want language help with making immutable types. Use of {} for namespace and class and method and property/indexer blocks and multi-statement blocks and array initializers. Makes it hard to figure out where you are when they're far apart or mismatched. I hate writing (from x in y ... select).Z(). I don't want to have to fall back to method call syntax because the query syntax is missing something. I want a do clause on query syntax, which is like foreach. But it's not really a query then.

我真的到达这里了。我认为c#非常棒，而且很难发现它有什么缺陷。

闲聊

我不想再用java、delphi、c#或ruby进行开发(这是不切实际的，因为我公司的主要开发语言是c#、delphi和java)。 从左到右的评估。 有类注释但没有方法注释(至少在Squeak中) 没有真正的标准库，在细节上有很多差异 缺少名称空间

C

字符串操作。

必须手动处理字符串缓冲区是一个容易出错的痛苦。由于如此多的计算实际上是移动和修改字符串(计算机并不像人们想象的那样用于大型数字运算)，因此能够使用托管语言或c++的字符串对象来处理这些非常好。当我必须在直发C时，感觉就像在流沙中游泳。

哇，我很惊讶SQL还没有出现在这里。我猜这意味着没有人喜欢它:)

跨实现的语法不一致 细微的代码差异可能会因为看似模糊的原因而产生巨大的性能影响 对文本操作的支持很差 入门成本低，但掌握这门语言的学习曲线陡峭 最大限度地标准化社区的最佳实践，这包括语法风格。

.．.还有一些额外的讨厌它的理由，不需要额外收费

the WHERE clause goes last, making it easy to prematurely execute an UPDATE or DELETE, destroying the whole table. Instead, the WHERE should go somewhere up front. It's difficult to implement relational division. I can set a value to NULL, but I can't test it for equality with NULL. I can check IS NULL, but that just complicates code -- needlessly so, in my opinion. Why do we need to completely respecify the formula for a GROUPed column, rather than setting an alias on the column and then GROUP BY the alias (or column index as with SORT)?