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。

我讨厌所有语言的五件事(至少就我所知):

Does what I say/type, not what I mean Will undoubtedly meet people who think they are experts in the language, but just make a mess of it (e.g. people who insist that removing comments/unused local variables will speed up execution time for a program) Unless the language is obsolete, then it will probably continue to evolve (either the actual language, or the concepts behind using it effectively) requiring you to actively develop with it so as to not fall behind. Can't modify the lexer/compiler (add in own context sensitive grammar) No perfect language (every language is missing some sort of useful feature that usually is either impossible to simulate, will unavoidable have an ugly interface or just require far too much time to implement and get it right)

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。

Python:

速度 静态分析(缺乏) 匿名函数仅限于一个表达式

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。

PHP

没有构造函数重载 不一致的函数命名(str_replace，但strtolower) define()不像c++那样逐字替换全局变量。 在与XHTML组合时，像if-语句这样的语句必须以不缩进开始，即使为了保持XHTML缩进一致，XHTML是缩进的。

Ex:

你必须输入:

<?php
if($x == NULL)
{
?>
                     <p><?= $x . ' is null' ?></p>
<?php
}
?>

错误捕获非常糟糕

(不知道为什么又把5号改成了1号，随便了)