Scala是我最喜欢的语言。五件讨厌的事?容易:

Takes a long time to learn properly. I know you can write Scala as a 'better java'. That is what we used to say about C++ and C too. I agree this is an inevitable consequence of the deep ideas in the language. But still ... Methods vs. Functions: def f(x: Int) = x*x defines a method f, not a function f. Methods are not functions despite a lot of early Scala tutorial material blurring the distinction. The language tries to blur it too because if you supply a method in some places where a function is expected it is accepted. Do we have to have both methods and functions? Yes it is fundamental. But it was initially confusing to me. Composing classes or objects from mixins in the 'cake' pattern is prone to NPE's. e.g. trait X { val host: String; val url = "http://" + host } is a mixin that will NPE on instantiation, or not, depending on its position in the class declaration. The compiler could tell you if it will fail but doesn't. (In 2.7 anyway.) It is hard to diagnose the problem in complex inheritance graphs. Arrays in 2.8 rely on implicits to mesh with the main scala collection types. But implicits are not applied everywhere. An Array can be supplied where a Seq is expected. But an Option[Array] cannot be supplied where an Option[Seq] is expected. I know there are no completely 'right' ways to handle java Arrays. Type erasure. Enough said.

Common Lisp

缺少提供更现代功能的标准库(套接字，线程，…) 是否可以使用映射到本机窗口系统的标准化UI Scheme将lambda表达式赋值给变量并将变量直接作为函数调用使用的能力看起来比APPLY for FUNCALL更整洁。我猜这是使用多个名称空间的副作用 标准化的库源代码级打包系统，以便可以从多个实现中轻松使用它们

我想知道强类型的口齿不清会是什么样子

C++:

缺乏象征意义。 过度迷恋C语言的兼容性。 极其复杂的预处理器。 模板错误几乎是不可理解的。 没有垃圾回收。

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。

C++

太容易随机破坏内存并创建几乎不可能找到的错误(尽管Valgrind在修复这个问题上走了很长的路)。 模板错误消息。 在使用模板时，很容易将所有内容都包含在一个文件中，然后进行愚蠢的编译。 标准库在现代是一个笑话(默认情况下仍然没有线程或网络?) 大量令人讨厌的C语言(特别是所有在short/int/unsigned/等之间的转换)。

Haskell:

惰性计算导致空间泄漏。 数字层次结构不是根据数学抽象构造的。 严格的单元IO会使调试更加困难。 大型实现处理I/O的方式似乎与标准不太兼容。(特别是，输出字符只输出低8位——然后构建代码，使用这个假设来执行二进制I/O。我吐!) ($)运算符的结合性可以被改变以使某些表达式更漂亮。

大多数问题都不会上升到讨厌的程度，有些人试图解决或为每一个问题构建可靠的变通办法。

编辑:关于第5点有些困惑。特别是有些人似乎认为我指的是论证的顺序，但我不是。我不解释我的意思，我只想让人们去下面的链接http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ChangeDollarAssociativity，它很好地表达了我的意思。