length属性很容易与length()函数混淆;请改用size() 在选择器字符串中插入变量的语法('" +$。Month + "')臭死了 $(event.currentTarget)并不总是适用于冒泡和捕获 属性语法("[class='foot']")在选择器语法(".foot")不返回任何结果的地方起作用 包含选择器([class~=done])有时会在JavaScript (this.className.search("done") > 0)工作时失败

Clojure

Lack of built-in syntax for optional and keyword parameters in function definitions. Sure, you can add it easily enough, but that means library writers don't use it. Pervasive destructuring hasn't proven to be a good substitute yet Lack of method combination (before/after/around methods of the sort found in Common Lisp) Too much reliance on Java interop, e.g. there's no built-in file IO Sometimes I want static typing. This one isn't pure hate; I usually prefer dynamic, and attempts to mix the two have been largely unsatisfactory There's no built-in fast binary serialization format for the built-in data structures, though I hear people are working on it

Python:

我仍然是python的一般用户，所以我的抱怨可能只是知识的锁或误用。欢迎提出意见。我很喜欢这门语言。

Poor thread support and GIL. If you'd like to take use of multicore platform, most of the python programmers would probably recommend multiprocessing or some sort, don't use threading. It wouldn't give you the performance you are expecting. property only for instance variable. _class_var = property(classmethod(some_method)) just wouldn't work. How can I get a property wrapped class variable? no access control. All access controls are syntax mangling. Like private is __private, protect is _protected, etc... And hope that everyone programs python follows the naming convention. Come on, we can do better than that. I agree the python philosophy of being simple and clear syntax but some simple and clear syntax not being supported seems lock of good judgement, in my opinion. Such as, a++, ++a, a-- and --a, self-de/increment, what's wrong with those? foo = (a > b ? a : b) unary operation, what's wrong with those? (I know py2.6 has something similar introduced, but given the massive support of almost every other language for those simple syntax, why reinventing the wheel? why not just follow the best practice? Shouldn't a good thing just keep in its good "form"?) Program to interface. Python has no interface or abstract class concept (py3k has something called abc), everything is concrete. Providing an "interface" or "abstract" keyword to build class skeleton and guard class inheritance and extension wouldn't be a bad idea I think. It helps on top-down design. Currently, I just have to fill the each of methods with NotImplementedError, quite a tedious job. I have to add this. version less than 3.x has str and unicode types. This is a true nightmare. It makes ascii and non-ascii/unicode mixing most likely to fail (bad, bad)

我看到人们抱怨速度。我不明白。它是一种解释语言，代码直到运行时才编译成机器代码，这就是它的本质。你不能比较解释语言和编译语言的速度。据我所知，在解释/脚本语言中，python并不慢。

C

No parametric polymorphism (i.e. C++ templates). It makes writing reusable data structures and algorithms a pain (and there's hardly any static checking). See for instance the comparator argument to qsort and bsearch: the comparator takes void pointers :( No library of data structures. I really hate writing my own hash table. I also really hate scouring the web for a library of reusable data structures. Especially if it turns out to be incomplete. Strings. Inefficient representation, unwieldy if you make it sane, too hard to safely input a string. No standard for snprintf. Too hard to create a format string with sprintf, then use that to create a string with sprintf again, in a safe way. Only lexical macros. If different compilers expects function annotation in different places, I have to put the same HAS_NO_SIDE_EFFECTS in different places. Why can't I just grab the function, switch over the compiler type, and then insert it at the right place by a macro call? No portable libraries for common functionality. For sockets and threading, I use SDL---a frigging game library. For .ini-style parsers, the only library I could find which was packaged for ubuntu, I posted on the daily wtf (it calculates an array of hash values, then does a linear scan through it...)

C++

Template syntax is heavy and unweildy. Let's see, for(map<string, int>::const_iterator it = mymap.begin(); it != mymap.end(); ++it). Design errors in the STL. Should changing allocation strategy for your vector really change its type? Overly complex type system. Type T1 has a convert-to-T2 method, and T2 has an implicit from-T1 constructor. Which is called? How does overloading, overriding and multiple inheritance interact? Poorly, I guess... Incredibly long and unwieldy error messages from templates. You know what I mean... References means you can't see output parameters at call sites. In C, you can guess what foo(bar, &baz) can and can't modify.

Haskell:

空间泄漏——懒惰的默认代价——也许代价太高了? 甚至像head和tail这样的纯函数也会调用错误并引导您进入IO。 fail from Monad -带回MonadZero。 Num类-(+)应该在AdditiveGroup或类似的类型中。 那个单子不是一个应用程序。

C#

5. 空合并运算符

的? ?运算符允许你写:

x = y ?? z;

而不是:

x = (y == null) ? y : z;

我喜欢这个运算符，但我想要另一个:

x = y ??? y.foo() : z.foo();

而不是

x = (y == null) ? y.foo() : z.foo();

我一直在使用这种东西，而且我发现输入== null部分很烦人。

4. 平等应该有更好的支持

我必须启动每个Equals(object obj)方法: MyClass other = obj作为MyClass; If (other == null)返回false;

你只需要写:

public override bool Equals(MyClass other) {...}

语言应该注意提供Equals(object obj)方法。 注意:other必须保证不为空。

3.不能使用不同类型的三元运算符

这不能编译，我认为它应该编译!

string foo = "hello";
int bar = 4;
object baz = foo == null ? foo : bar;

2. 缺少命名空间private

我喜欢内部保护，但我希望有一种保护只允许从同一名称空间内进行访问。这样可以更好地控制大型类库的访问。

1. 没有多重继承

我实际上只对接口的默认实现使用实现(类)继承，但很多时候我想这样做。