Java:

没有过程编码，它编译成过程代码，所以让我使用它! 没有多重继承，试图用15,000个接口做同样的事情很糟糕。 约会课，我还需要多说吗。 我不能充分利用多态性。Java不会覆盖不同的参数类型来触发。 我想不出第五个原因，如果我知道，我会回来编辑这篇文章。

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。

Python

错误/异常在调试时是模糊的 我工作时不用 在类中使用__init__， __repr__， __str__等 不能简单地编译可执行文件(.exe或其他) 还有一件事我还没试过，但肯定会让我心烦

对于所有的c语言程序员来说，self对我来说更有意义，因为对象引用的是它的self

C#

我知道这很愚蠢，但我希望数据类型转换为我自己想要的，而不是我必须添加(int)或转换。ToInt32或者别的什么。这样可以节省我的时间。让我烦恼的是，如果我写了一些东西来输出一个int型，结果我需要一个long型，然后我经常不得不从头到尾修改我所做的一切来让它工作。就为了我!

抱歉，我想不出5个，但我是新手，所以也许我以后会回来添加更多:P

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.

Ruby。

Strange scoping rules - variables, constants, and methods each behave differently from each other. The rules change also depending on which keyword you used to create a closure. Or on whether you're in a class, eigenclass, object, module, or module's self. Then there's instance_eval, which changes the rules to a different set of rules. And they change again when a module is "included" or "extended", which themselves do different things to scope. And some sets of rules can't be emulated by metaprogramming, so you have to use eval. Unless you're on ruby 1.9, where all of this is different. Namespacing is basically useless. If you have Foo::File, then the stdlib File is probably broken for all of Foo. require statement is broken. If two files require eachother, the behavior of those files can change dramatically depending on which is loaded first from elsewhere. libraries change APIs dramatically and suddenly, so you have to require specific minor revision numbers of all of your dependencies. For every single ruby application on your system. The rubygems package system overrides "require" rather than putting files in the search path - because why use a system when you can replace it?