C#

Lack of multiple dispatch based on the runtime type of the method arguments. dynamic should solve most of this, but it hasn't been released yet. Interface implementation is declarative not structural. I really like the way Google's Go language is doing types Making asynchronous method calls is really bulky (and I'm pretty sure all threads are OS threads, not lightweight threads) No macro system. I'm not talking about C-style macros here; I'm talking LISP/Scheme style macros Operators are static methods and their signatures are overly constrained (and you can't create new ones).

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.

以下是我不喜欢Java的一些地方(它不是我最喜欢的语言):

Generics type erasure (i.e. no reified generics) Inability to catch multiple exceptions (of different types) in a single catch block Lack of destructors (finalize() is a very poor substitute) No support for closures or treating functions as data (anonymous inner classes are a very verbose substitute) Checked exceptions in general, or more specifically, making unrecoverable exceptions checked (e.g. SQLException) No language-level support for literal collections No type-inference when constructors of generic classes are called, i.e. the type parameter(s) must be repeated on both sides of the '='

C#

我的大部分抱怨都与假设c++约定自动成为c#的最佳选择有关

Class接口中不允许静态。这仍然是课程的一部分。为什么它不能成为界面的一部分?我不得不想出这么愚蠢的变通办法。 区分大小写。我知道在这一点上它会破坏遗留的应用程序，但为什么不区分大小写不是一开始的规则

对于。net的好处之一(不是c#特有的)

编译器不够聪明。在。net 3中。X，编译器可以找出“var”在编译时，为什么不其他常见的优化?我们都知道string和StringBuilder / immutable和mutable的区别。为什么编译器不为你转换它在很多情况下，显然StringBuilder比多个connect .s更好?我相信在默认情况下，编译器可以为我们做大量的其他优化(带有否决选项)，并为我们节省大量的时间。

我是在冒险，因为我不能全职使用它，但无论如何我会尝试一下!

Perl 6

func("frew") != func ("frew") It annoys me, but there is good reason for it. In Perl 5 print (5 + 6) * 10 still gets me every now and then It may be easier to parse than Perl 5 in a lot of places, but it still kills my editor sometimes It still has a lot of the line noise Perl 5 which scares a lot of people. That means it's harder to get them excited etc. There are no libraries yet. This will be a non issue if Perl 6 does indeed end up supporting Perl 5, but that may be a burden not worth bearing. There's no REPL, or what rubyists would call irb. A solid interactive Perl 6 with tab completion, color coding, etc, would make using and learning it so much nicer. Currently the documentation is basically the English spec. Not exactly an easy read. I know it's a stupid cliche, but it's not out yet! (I am allowed to complain because I am helping :-P)

前三点是语言;剩下的并不是语言本身，而是它还没有问世的事实。

Haskell:

惰性计算导致空间泄漏。 数字层次结构不是根据数学抽象构造的。 严格的单元IO会使调试更加困难。 大型实现处理I/O的方式似乎与标准不太兼容。(特别是，输出字符只输出低8位——然后构建代码，使用这个假设来执行二进制I/O。我吐!) ($)运算符的结合性可以被改变以使某些表达式更漂亮。

大多数问题都不会上升到讨厌的程度，有些人试图解决或为每一个问题构建可靠的变通办法。

编辑:关于第5点有些困惑。特别是有些人似乎认为我指的是论证的顺序，但我不是。我不解释我的意思，我只想让人们去下面的链接http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ChangeDollarAssociativity，它很好地表达了我的意思。