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).

我使用Java，我最大的不满是字符串操作的低效率。当你使用+运算符时。说真的，难道编译器不能计算出我添加了多少字符串，然后在后台为我生成StringBuffer的东西吗?

通常，使用+的代码比StringBuffers操作序列更具可读性。

另外，我讨厌本机数组和集合框架之间的冗余。. toarray()的语法极其丑陋。

Scala是我最喜欢的语言。五件讨厌的事?容易:

Takes a long time to learn properly. I know you can write Scala as a 'better java'. That is what we used to say about C++ and C too. I agree this is an inevitable consequence of the deep ideas in the language. But still ... Methods vs. Functions: def f(x: Int) = x*x defines a method f, not a function f. Methods are not functions despite a lot of early Scala tutorial material blurring the distinction. The language tries to blur it too because if you supply a method in some places where a function is expected it is accepted. Do we have to have both methods and functions? Yes it is fundamental. But it was initially confusing to me. Composing classes or objects from mixins in the 'cake' pattern is prone to NPE's. e.g. trait X { val host: String; val url = "http://" + host } is a mixin that will NPE on instantiation, or not, depending on its position in the class declaration. The compiler could tell you if it will fail but doesn't. (In 2.7 anyway.) It is hard to diagnose the problem in complex inheritance graphs. Arrays in 2.8 rely on implicits to mesh with the main scala collection types. But implicits are not applied everywhere. An Array can be supplied where a Seq is expected. But an Option[Array] cannot be supplied where an Option[Seq] is expected. I know there are no completely 'right' ways to handle java Arrays. Type erasure. Enough said.

我刚刚发现，在c#中创建泛型方法时，我不能使用Enum作为类型约束。

微软有一个足够好的解释，但仍然。我疯了

public static T MyFunc<T>(string arg) where T:Enum //wont work :(

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。

我最喜欢的是c#，但是已经有很多关于c#的答案了，所以我将选择我的下一个“最喜欢的”:

t - sql

The GO statement, and the fact that you need it for all manner of DDL/DML scripting, and the fact that it also breaks transaction semantics, making it far more difficult than it needs to be to write an atomic script, which you really need to have in order to upgrade a production database. Inconsistent semicolon semantics. 99% of the syntax doesn't need it, MERGE statement has to end with it, WITH statement has to begin with it... make up your mind! WITH CHECK CHECK / WITH NOCHECK CHECK. Uuuu-gly. Optional parameters in UDFs aren't really optional. Caller must specify DEFAULT (and don't even try using NULL instead). Compare to SPs where they are truly optional. "...may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths." HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE