Python:

You usually have the entry point of the program at the end of the file. (Because if it calls any function defined in the module, it has to occur after those functions in the sources.) I hate it when you have to spend time looking for the entry point of a program, so I always have a simple main.py file with: def main(): ... if __name__ == '__main__': main() When an exception is raised, it can only be catched by the main thread. Or something like that. Destructors are quite useless, because when written in Python they may break garbage collection IIRC. I've never figured out how relative imports work in Python 2. I'd like to see more collections in the standard library. For example: linked lists, thread-safe collections, ...

C

bit fields -- they aren't well specified by the language and how they work is compiler dependent and architecture dependent. It's often hard to find where a particular symbol is defined in a large mass of code, esp. if that symbol is produced by a macro. Which reminds me... The preprocessor is a rather ugly hack, amenable to all sorts of abuse. lack of standard sized integers (remedied by uint*_t lately, but there is lots and lots of old code floating around out there with custom typedefs or #defines for DWORD, WORD, BYTE, etc.) Lack of something akin to Perl's cpan.org (would love to be wrong about that one.)

编辑: 在考虑C的CPAN时，我想……我该怎么称呼这样的东西，然后想到了“ccan”，然后谷歌了一下，我看到了这个: http://ccan.ozlabs.org/

不过，它似乎还处于起步阶段。

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。

C

字符串操作。

必须手动处理字符串缓冲区是一个容易出错的痛苦。由于如此多的计算实际上是移动和修改字符串(计算机并不像人们想象的那样用于大型数字运算)，因此能够使用托管语言或c++的字符串对象来处理这些非常好。当我必须在直发C时，感觉就像在流沙中游泳。

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。

闲聊

我不想再用java、delphi、c#或ruby进行开发(这是不切实际的，因为我公司的主要开发语言是c#、delphi和java)。 从左到右的评估。 有类注释但没有方法注释(至少在Squeak中) 没有真正的标准库，在细节上有很多差异 缺少名称空间