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)

VBA(因为你认为你的语言不好)

Whitespace inside a line is rigidly enforced. Statements just end, and require a " _" to break to the next line, but not every line can be broken. No ++,--,+=,-= statements. Seriously? Arrays can begin at any index, not just 0. Some types (i.e.: fixed-point "Decimal" value) must be subtypes of Variant, and aren't available as their own type. != and <>. "=" is used as both comparator and assigning, instead of splitting into "=" and "==". "Option Explicit". UI hasn't been updated since 2000. Office2k7 didn't upgrade to VB.NET Most object models are non-sensical and overly verbose.

Haskell。

默认情况下导入Prelude。 类型类的范围是通用的。 模块不是一流的。 类型不能依赖于值。 单子不统一Functor。

Python:

1) line continuation syntax: "...\" works, but "...\ " does not, and that trailing space is generally invisible, without unusual eol-marking by editer. 2) a bare 'raise' is invisible in the stack trace, as the stack trace looks like the previous raised exception. 3) slow 4) poor integration into web-servers (mod_python: dead, mod_wsgi: limited scope of operation). This is complicated by 3], requiring daemonization or some sort of memory-persistance to perform well. 5) overly tolerant of mixed tabs and spaces, allowing changes to control flow to sometimes remain hidden. (maybe fixed in recent versions)

Python

没有Django for Python 3。 静态类型。是的，动态类型是很棒的东西，但有时我确实想让它成为静态的。 正确的unicode支持(在Python 3中修复) Construtors命名。我讨厌代码中的所有这些下划线。 线程的效率不是很高

C#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.