Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.

我的常用语言是爪哇语。这就是我讨厌它的地方:

5)。缺少指针 4)。异常捕捉 3)。布尔类型 2)。BigDecimal类型 1)。c#爱好者和Java爱好者

布尔值可以为空。我觉得这是违反直觉的。

BigDecimal是一个库，而不是一个语言特性。我对BigDecimal和Exception捕获的烦恼主要源于编写测试类，这些测试类必须跳过一堆箍才能完成实际工作。我应该澄清一下，我对这些事情很恼火，我不打算游说改变。

Python:

1) It's a scripting language and not a fully compiled one (I'd prefer to be able to compile binaries—I don't care about bytecode). This is very annoying if I have to use very many libraries (i.e. everyone who uses my program has to install all the libraries, and this basically means no normal people will be able to, or have the patience to, properly set it up—unless I do a ton of work that should be unnecessary). I know ways to make binaries, but they don't always work, and I'm guessing they bundle the interpreter in the binaries anyhow (and I don't want that). Now, if I could get a bytecode compiler that would include copies of all the files that I imported (and only those) to be placed in my program's folder, that might be a suitable compromise (then no one would have to download extra libraries and such). It would also be nice if the compiled python files could be compressed into a single file with one specified as the file to run the program before this is done.

2)有时看起来有点bug;有几次，应该工作的代码根本没有工作(没有程序员错误)，特别是与“from moduleX import *”和其他导入相关的问题有关的代码，以及一些与全局和局部变量有关的问题。

3)最大递归深度可以更高。至少有一次，我觉得我需要它去更高的地方。

4)没有switch语句(更不用说允许数字、字符串和范围的语句)

5)新版本的Python似乎取消了很多有用的字符串操作，而且似乎没有简单的文档说明如何在没有它们的情况下做同样的事情。

6)强制自动垃圾收集(我希望能够手动执行，尽管不一定强制执行)。

7)没有预先制作的定时器类没有使用GUI(好吧，可能有一个，但在我所做的所有搜索之后，它肯定不方便找到!我确实找到了一些东西，但当我尝试时，它根本不起作用。)所谓计时器，我指的是每隔x秒执行一个指定函数的排序，并能在需要时关闭它，等等。

8)社区里举例的人很少告诉我们他们导入了哪些模块，以及他们是如何导入的。

9)与Lua集成的支持并不多。

10)似乎没有办法向一个类的特定实例(而不是整个类)添加一个额外的函数，除非你动态地向该类添加一个对象变量，该对象具有所需的函数(但仍然，你必须为此创建另一个类)。

关于c#:

I hate that there is no keyword to specify which exceptions are thrown from a method like in java. Its a much better way to document exceptions than using an XML comment. I would also want a much better syntax for generic constraints like oring and anding of constraints. Why a method can't return more than one value? Lack of support for aspect oriented programming in the language. Why can't you annotate each one of the property accessors with an attribute? Lack of builtin regexp support like in perl.

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.

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。