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).

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.

我觉得最喜欢的语言是不可能选择的。动态类型和静态类型不能进行比较，所以我只列出我使用的是哪一种类型

C++:

Template metaprogramming syntax is ugly. An implicit ::value would make it much more concise ->. Why can't the compiler figure out that I'm doing a ptr.thing and just do -> for me? I hate whitespace. So the whole vector<vector<int>> has to be vector<vector<int> > makes me get the jitters and then I can't focus whenever I see that line of code and I end up trying to figure out a way to use int[][] or something Macros. I personally love the concept of macros. But with C++, I that the system is a hack I'm a hater of ;

Python:

字符串是不可变的。这样我就不能用string[4]="b" 通过引用隐式复制列表。哪个泄漏到[[0]*width]*height问题 缺少尾递归(每当我输入错误递归函数时，我必须安装IDLE以避免吐出1000条错误消息) 字典键不接受列表/字典 缺乏深度范围。当我做一个列表推导时，我不希望其中的变量影响到外部作用域

JavaScript:

The Object prototype can be modified. Every single object in your program gets new properties, and something probably breaks. All objects are hash maps, but it's difficult to safely use them as such. In particular, if one of your keys happens to be __proto__, you're in trouble. No object closure at function reference time. In fact, no object closure at all -- instead, this is set whenever a function is called with object notation or the new operator. Results in much confusion, particularly when creating event callbacks, because this isn't set to what the programmer expects. Corollary: calling a function without object notation or the new operator results in this being set equal to the global object, resulting in much breakage. Addition operator overloaded to also perform string concatenation, despite the two operations being fundamentally different. Results in pain when a value you expect to be a number is in fact a string. == and != operators perform type coercion. Comparisons between different types involve a list of rules that no mortal can remember in full. This is mitigated by the existence of === and !== operators. Both null and undefined exist, with subtly different, yet redundant meanings. Why? Weird syntax for setting up prototype chains. parseInt(s) expects a C-style number, so treats values with leading zeroes as octal, etc. You can at least parseInt(s, 10) but the default behaviour is confusing. No block scope. Can declare the same variable more than once. Can use a variable without declaring it, in which case it's global and probably breaks your program. with { }. Really difficult to document with JavaDoc like tools.

.NET框架(库)

嵌套类型很少使用(例如MessageBoxButton应该是MessageBox.Button) 可变结构体(Rect, Point) 系统名称空间中有太多东西 太多不同的平等概念(对象。等于,对象。ReferenceEquals, operator ==， operator !=， IComparable.CompareTo() == 0) 数组的成员是可变的，但长度是不变的。

还有一点:

XmlSerialization不适用于不可变类型

Python:

处理数字太慢了。这不是什么大问题，除非…… 不能简单地在程序中包含导入时自动编译的C代码。 在py3k接管之前，我们仍然要忍受愚蠢的整数除法规则。 在py3k接管之前，像imap和izip这样的好东西仍然存在于一个单独的模块中。 在py3k接管之前，我们还有很多工作要做。