D

we have in operator, but no !in operator? dynamic array 'length' property - ya canna do array.length += 512; no exit statement - as in python's sys.exit(), etc. Sure, you can call C's exit, but unflushed output don't get flushed associative array literals + string literals suck string literals found as is inside an associative array literal are interpreted as static, thus this char[][char[]] hash = ["hello":"world","goodbye":"angels"]; doesn't work without some extra casting due to different length string literals despite a. I didn't ask it to be interpreted as static arrays b. static arrays aren't allowed in associative arrays anyways cyclic dependencies disallowed (want to port that java lib? Have fun redesigning the class hierarchy)

谁帮我检查一下;不确定它们是否都有意义。

C / C + +

缺乏完整的SWAP功能 模板的语法 你不能#define一个#define(没有多通道) 编译器之间的结构打包不兼容 Char是有符号的还是无符号的?

Java

边缘上的不变性 没有像c#一样的ref关键字 到处尝试/捕捉积木 运行时性能差 所有与字符串相关的东西

Python

没有“main”(我已经习惯了!) 强调关键词 有限的线程支持 用self代替this 缺少类似C/ c++的语法

Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

我讨厌内梅尔的五个方面:

局部函数不能让步 编译lambda的能力有时取决于它是否内联 元组的值/引用类型语义不一致 数组下标和类型参数之间偶尔会出现歧义 缺乏普遍采用

我最喜欢的是c#，但是已经有很多关于c#的答案了，所以我将选择我的下一个“最喜欢的”:

t - sql

The GO statement, and the fact that you need it for all manner of DDL/DML scripting, and the fact that it also breaks transaction semantics, making it far more difficult than it needs to be to write an atomic script, which you really need to have in order to upgrade a production database. Inconsistent semicolon semantics. 99% of the syntax doesn't need it, MERGE statement has to end with it, WITH statement has to begin with it... make up your mind! WITH CHECK CHECK / WITH NOCHECK CHECK. Uuuu-gly. Optional parameters in UDFs aren't really optional. Caller must specify DEFAULT (and don't even try using NULL instead). Compare to SPs where they are truly optional. "...may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths." HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE

C#

Cannot create a reference (var &t = struct) No local scope destructors (IDispose comes close but its not the same) ToString, i almost dislike that every object has it but it turns out i dislike everything using it like string.format does. I rather have things that accepts a certain type (like ints, floats, text, chars only). So instead of passing in any object i need to pass in something with a implicit typecast or interface. I ended up writing something like this to safely escape text for html which worked great. Cannot use a virtual typecast (blah)obj; does not work if obj does not inherit/has an interface of blah. Simple workaround is to supply an interface with a convert function. Has no local creation. Instead of writing var o = new Item(); i would like to write (something like) Item o() (with an automatic dispose if it has one).