Python:

1) line continuation syntax: "...\" works, but "...\ " does not, and that trailing space is generally invisible, without unusual eol-marking by editer. 2) a bare 'raise' is invisible in the stack trace, as the stack trace looks like the previous raised exception. 3) slow 4) poor integration into web-servers (mod_python: dead, mod_wsgi: limited scope of operation). This is complicated by 3], requiring daemonization or some sort of memory-persistance to perform well. 5) overly tolerant of mixed tabs and spaces, allowing changes to control flow to sometimes remain hidden. (maybe fixed in recent versions)

Python,:

No switch keyword. And NO, dictionary is not a replacement for it. Not even a bunch of elif statements. Inconsistent line break handling. Why can I do: test = (1, 2, 3) And not: from itertools import cycle, islice, izip Why can't I do: if stuff \ and foo \ or bar: return "Formated string with %(arg)s" % \ {'arg': "bloody slash"} without using slashes? There is not one obvious and only one way to do it. Python fails on its motto just like Java failed on "Write once run anywhere". # what somebody from an another language would do if not test.has_key('foo'): test['foo'] = 0 n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what an agnostic beginer would do try: test['foo'] += 1 except KeyError: test['foo'] = 1 n = test['foo'] vs # what you end up after looking for dictionary default value in the python doc test.setdefault('foo', 0) n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what I would do n = test['foo'] = test.get('foo', 0) + 1 And the worst is that they don't do exactly the same thing. There are subtle differences. Choice between spaces and tabs. There should be no choice. Pick on, set it in stone and stop fighting. Why can you do that: test = {} test['foo'] = 0 but not: test = [] test[] = 0

附注:" ".join(l)是优秀的人。不要抱怨它，这并不明显，但考虑到迭代器模式，这是正确的方法。

Ruby是我最喜欢的语言，以下是我不喜欢的语言:

绿色线程+阻塞C库=巨大的失败 慢得令人痛苦 标准库本身与其使用bang!方法 模块包含+扩展是混乱的。 “开放类”不能是范围-我想添加一个String#dostuff，但我不希望泄漏到所有的第三方库 没有二进制部署打包解决方案。

Python。

虽然前面提到了python处理作用域的奇怪方式，但我觉得最糟糕的结果是:

import random

def myFunction():

    if random.choice(True, False):
        myString = "blah blah blah"

    print myString

也就是说，if块内部的作用域与函数的其余部分相同，这意味着变量声明可以出现在条件分支内部，并且可以在条件分支外部访问。大多数语言要么阻止你这样做，要么至少为你提供某种严格的模式。

此函数有时会成功，但有时会抛出异常。虽然这是一个人为的例子，但这可能会导致一些微妙的问题。

Ruby

无类型推断 方法/函数不是一级对象 变量的范围不是词法的，尽管块变量的范围是词法的 Def内部的Def super和super()的区别

C

bit fields -- they aren't well specified by the language and how they work is compiler dependent and architecture dependent. It's often hard to find where a particular symbol is defined in a large mass of code, esp. if that symbol is produced by a macro. Which reminds me... The preprocessor is a rather ugly hack, amenable to all sorts of abuse. lack of standard sized integers (remedied by uint*_t lately, but there is lots and lots of old code floating around out there with custom typedefs or #defines for DWORD, WORD, BYTE, etc.) Lack of something akin to Perl's cpan.org (would love to be wrong about that one.)

编辑: 在考虑C的CPAN时，我想……我该怎么称呼这样的东西，然后想到了“ccan”，然后谷歌了一下，我看到了这个: http://ccan.ozlabs.org/

不过，它似乎还处于起步阶段。