Common Lisp:

关键词往往太啰嗦。 库支持是可怜的。 在希望更严格地处理内存的操作系统中不能很好地工作。 没有与操作系统交互的良好工具。 “循环”功能没有很好地定义，当然看起来也不像Lispy。

Java -不支持语言级别的组合

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。

我有一本书探讨了SNOBOL中的各种项目。第一章探讨了SNOBOL编程和语言的历史和文化，并花了一些时间论证一个优秀的程序员喜欢一种语言不是因为它的缺陷，而是尽管有缺陷。

我最喜欢的语言是Icon/Unicon。但还是有一些事情让我很恼火:

它不是很出名，也不是很受欢迎。 与PHP、Perl、Java等相比，它的库要小得多。数据库访问是通过ODBC完成的，这实际上非常烦人。 对于所有其他出色的列表处理，我想念PHP内置的explosion()和implode()。 它没有表常数。列表，是的，表格，不是。 它是一种编译(实际翻译)语言。

Erlang

没有静态推断 就像在哈斯凯尔发现的一样。这 会导致运行时错误和一个 有认真写代码还是使用 透析器(1)发现 差异。动态类型是 慢的:也被认为是慢的; 与C、Java等语言相比，它几乎是未知的; 的lists(3)模块有时相当精简 我缺少用于列表处理的有用函数 (就像在数据。例如Haskell中的List); 让我在每句话的结尾都加上 在从句中，和。最后是后者。

c# / .net:

Classes should be sealed by default There should be no lock statement - instead, you should have specific locking objects, and there should be methods such as Acquire which return disposable lock tokens. Corollary: there shouldn't be a monitor for every object. GetHashCode() and Equals() shouldn't be in System.Object - not everything's suitable for hashing. Instead, have an IdentityComparer which does the same thing, and keep the IComparer<T>, IComparable<T>, IEqualityComparer<T> and IEquatable<T> interfaces for custom comparisons. Poor support for immutability Poor way of discovering extension methods - it should be a much more conscious decision than just the fact that I'm using a namespace.

这些都是我想出来的，明天问我，我会想出一个不同的5个:)