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:)

C++

模板的语法 钻石传承问题 现代语言所拥有的标准库过多/缺乏(尽管boost也很接近)。 iostream IOStreams周围使用的语法

Python

空格是有意义的(有时) 强调关键词 有限的线程支持(至少目前) 用self代替this 空格是有意义的(有时)

C#

我对c#非常满意，但这两个真的让我很恼火:

Constructor-based initialization for immutable classes is less convenient, less intuitive (when you read the code you don't understand what you assign to what), has less IDE backing than inline object initialization. This makes you lean towards mutable classes inevitably. I know this has been mentioned before, but I strictly have problems with initialization syntax for immutable classes. switch is too verbose. Whenever I see a situation where a switch would be proper, I'm really inclined to use an if..else if.. just because it's more terse (~30% less typing). I think there should be no fallthrough for switch, break should be implied, and case should allow comma separated list of values.

c#:

1)静态方法必须是类的成员

2)静态扩展方法只能添加到静态类中

3)接口函数的实现不会被标记为“override”之类的东西来显示它们来自基类或接口(这使得你很难确保你正在重写你所期望的方法(具有正确的签名))。

我只有3个。我想那很好。

REBOL

REBOL是我最喜欢的语言之一。我不能说我有一个最喜欢的，尽管Haskell排名也很高。

Its odd syntax scares off many developers before they even give it a try. use [email rules url] [ ; A small DSL that sends email to people about URLs. rules: [ some [ into [ set email email! set url url! (send/subject email url reform [ "Check Out" url ]) ] ] ] ; Global context notify: func [ [catch] dsl [block!] ] [ unless parse dsl rules [ throw make error! "You screwed up somehow." ] ] ] notify [ [ a@b.com http://www.google.com ] [ b@c.com http://www.yahoo.com ] ] Recursive dialects are very easy to validate with PARSE but very difficult to evaluate. (Stacks can be helpful here.) REBOL has very poor integration with many popular technologies, particularly XML. I suspect this is partly arrogance, because the REBOL BLOCK! datatype can do almost everything XML can do. However, the real world has XML in it. No Unicode. Thanks to AltMe, REBOL's user community is very insular. I can understand why they want to use AltMe. It's written in REBOL and shows off its strengths. Unfortunately it also puts them off on their own little island.

即将到来的REBOL 3有望解决许多这些问题，除了最后一个。

我对特尔斐的5分:

Procedures and functions aren't necessarily distinguished from variables if not parameterized (eg, I can have statement such as x := GetPositionOnScreen; instead of x := GetPositionOnScreen();) Try/Finally and Try/Except needs to be nested (stated once before, but it's still one of mine as well). Not case sensitive. Can have a multiple objects (functions, global variables, local variables) named the same and Delphi will happily try to figure out what you mean. names should be unique. Odd if condition rules. a single conditional check doesn't require a () around it, but if I do multiple checks, I need a () around each one, and sometimes multiple nested sets for bigger checks. No inherited includes. If I need to reference functionality from the Windows unit in a base and an inherited form, I have to include Windows in both.