c#(好吧，我猜一部分是VisualStudio IDE):

No covariance (yet), like Class<D> cannot be used in place of Class<B> even though type D derives from type B. Graphic designers don't support generic based inheritance (or inheritance from abstract classes), even though the inheritance itself works just fine if you work around the designer problems by adding extra inheritance levels just so designers always see concrete non-generic variants of your code. No constructor inheritance No constructors in where clauses of generic type parameters VisualStudio seems to have a tendency to mysteriously check out files (like project files and/or unit test definitions) when opening a solution, even though the files do not seem to actually get altered.

如果你明天再问我，可能会有不同的名单。即使协方差和设计师的麻烦将在我的前5名，直到他们被解决(随着方差添加到c# 4.0，这似乎已经发生了至少一个…)

那"我讨厌某些语言的五件事"清单呢?: D

把橙色涂成红色并不能让它成为苹果。

当设计一种语言时，设计者通常会考虑它的用途。用它做一些完全不同的事情是可以的，但是当它不起作用时抱怨是愚蠢的。Python。我相信总有一天会有人用Python代码创建exe工具。你到底为什么要这么做?不要误解我的意思，这样做很好，但没有任何用处。所以别再抱怨了!

一个设计良好的项目很可能包含来自多种语言的代码。这并不是说你不能只用一种语言完成一个项目。有些项目可能完全在您所使用的任何语言的能力范围内。

4-你是用木腿站着吗?

The platform can be a large influence of what the language can do. With nowadays garbage collectors, or well even pascals early attempt at "garbage collection", can aid in memory fade (maybe malloc more ram??). Computers are faster and so of course, we expect more out of our languages. And quite frankly, we probably should. However, there is a huge price to pay for the convenience of the compiler to create hash tables or strings or a variety of other concepts. These things may not be inherit to the platform of which they are used. To say they are easy to include to a language just tells me you may not have a leg to stand on.

3-到底是谁的错?

Bugs. You know. I love bugs. Why do I love bugs. Because it means I get to keep my job. Without bugs, there would be many closed pizza shops. However, users hate bugs. But here is a little splash of cold water. Every bug is the programmers fault. Not the language's. A language with such a strict syntax that would significantly reduce how many bugs were possible to generated would be a completely useless language. It's abilities could probably be counted on one hand. You want flexibility or power? You've got bugs. Why? Because you're not perfect, and you make mistakes. Take a really identifiable example in C:

int a[10];
for (int idx = 0; idx < 15; idx++) a[idx] = 10;

我们都知道会发生什么。然而，也许我们中的一些人没有意识到…这种功能是非常有益的。这取决于你在做什么。缓冲区溢出是该功能的代价。上面的代码。如果我真的把它公之于众。这是再一次. .和我一起说。“我的错”。不是C，因为你允许我这么做。

2-我们不应该把它放进回收站吗?

It's very easy to point at a feature in a language we don't understand because we don't use it often and call it stupid. Complain that it's there etc. Goto's always entertain me. People always complain about goto's being in a language. Yet I bet your last program included a type of goto. If you have ever used a break or a continue, you've used a goto. That's what it is. Granted, it's a "safe" goto, but it is what it is. Goto's have their uses. Whether "implicit" gotos like continue or break are used or explicit gotos (using the actual keyword "goto" for whatever language). Not that language developers are flawless, but typically... if functionality has existed since the dawn of time (for that language). Likely that aspect is a defining quality of that language. Meaning.. it's being used and likely is not hanging around because of backwards compatibility. It's being used today. As in 5 minutes ago. And used properly. Well.. arguably someone is using it improperly as well, but that relates to #3 on my list.

1. -一切都是客体。

Ok.. this one is really a subset of #2. But this is by far the most annoying complaint I see in hate lists. Not everything is an object. There are a great many of concepts that do not belong or need to be objects. Putting things where they don't belong is just ugly and can decrease efficiency of a program. Sure. Maybe not much depending on the language. This also relates to #5. This means... yes. Global are ok. Functions as apposed to static methods are ok. Combining OO programming with global functions is ok. Now.. that doesn't mean we should all go out and "free" our code from it's object models either. When designing a section of code or a whole project, what happens behind the scenes should be considered when putting it together. Not only where that concept lives and many other factors. Why wrap global functions within classes or name space concepts if it serves no purpose? Take static member variables. That greatly amuses me because.. well..Depending on the language and implementation of course, but generally speaking, you just declared a global. Yes, there are some reasons to wrap these non-OO concepts in OO wrappers. One of course being self documenting code. That can make sense. So.. like I say. Don't go out and "free" your code. But any good modern language will have a global concept outside of it's OO modeling. Yes I'm specifically meaning to point out that an OO programming language without a global concept most likely has a serious design flaw. Again though.. depends on the intention and design of the language so I'm not attempting to pick on any specific language and there are far too many to analyze right here. Anywho, Consider where the code should live and be the most effective. Adding a bunch of flare to something which doesn't add functionality or support just wears down the keyboard faster. It doesn't do anybody any good. Well.. unless you like brownie points from the person who probably incorrectly taught you that everything is an object.

In short, programming isn't just mindlessly tapping on the keyboard. There are a lot of design considerations to any project. I know it's cliche, but you have to look at it from every angle. Even with nowadays type-safe languages. You don't just chuck code out and expect it to work well. Sure.. it may work, but it may not be the right way to go about it. Overall, pick the language and format that is best suited for the specific job AND the environment. But no language takes away the thought behind it. If you're not thinking.. you're just typing.

Ruby:

太慢了 自负的群体 这不是闲谈 在nil上调用方法时出错，而不是返回nil à la Objective C 非线程

Emacs Lisp

目前还没有足够的商业市场让人们全职用elisp编码 GNU Emacs vs XEmacs不兼容 Scheme中的嵌套函数很整洁，我希望elisp有[1]的概念 用于简单遍历列表的do循环或其他一些工具不是标准的(当然，您现在可以使用lambda进行映射)[1] (function (lambda(…)))[1]应该有一个简写

当然，Lisp的一个美妙之处在于，用一行代码在你自己的代码中修复这些问题并不难。但这并不是与生俱来的，这让我很恼火。

好的问题;我有点不好意思，因为我想不出更好的东西来恨，但说实话，法官大人，没什么好恨的。

Lua

我喜欢这门语言，但是有一些事情困扰了我很多年!

No (built-in) support of binary operations (as of 5.1, it might come with 5.2). Should have a built-in binary buffer implementation, allowing for example in place long string concatenation. I know it doesn't fit well in the syntax, but sometime I miss longVariableName++ or verboseVariableName += 5. Reference assumes knowledge of C (I have it but it is a minus for newcomers) and defers some help to C reference! And sometime it is too terse. It is starting to have a good deal of libraries, but you have to get them from various places. On the other hand, the download is very small! ;-)

再给c++投一票…仍然是我最喜欢的语言，有几个亲密的追随者——C和Python。以下是我目前最讨厌的名单，排名不分先后:

Plethora of integer types inherited from C - way too many problems caused by signed vs. unsigned mistakes Copy constructors and assignment operators - why can't the compiler create one from the other automatically? Variable argument madness - va_list just doesn't work with objects and I'm so sick of problems created with sprintf(), snprintf(), vsnprintf(), and all of their relatives. Template implementation is required to be fully visible at compile time - I'm thinking of the lack of "export" implementations or at least usable ones Lack of support for properties - I want to have a read-only member like "a.x" that can be read publicly and only assigned internally. I really hate the "val=obj.getX()" and "obj.setX(val)". I really want properties with access control and a consistent syntax.