我可以为Python添加另一个:

给定一个列表l = [l1, l2，…]， ln]，那么repr(l) = [repr(l1)， repr(l2)，…， repr(ln)]，但str(l) != [str(l1)， str(l2)，…， str(ln)] (str(l) = repr(l))。之所以这样做，是因为列表中可能有模糊的条目，如l = ["foo]， [bar，"， "]，["]， str(l)将返回"[foo]， [bar，]，[]"，这“可能会使用户感到困惑”。然而，这使得str不可能仅用于转储数据，因为list杀死了“仅以可读格式转储数据”。Augh !

Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.

Perl代表了一种可怕的语言。

No "public" or "private" or "protected" declarations/definitions. The "my $variable_name;" does not declare a global outside of a subroutine. The "my $variable_name;" gets accessed by subroutines but "use strict;" or other "use " creates warnings. Function prototypes end up unexplained, undemonstrated, unwanted, or some other excuse. Overzealous symbol use ends up "cool and quick" when reading globs of symbols. When one gets hot they like to stay hot, and need nothing to cool them. After a week of Perl, I end up unable to write a function and prototype it. What exactly is a module and does it actually NEED a ".pm" extension? If you want to create a public variable and access it from inside a subroutine, how do you accomplish this without creating a warning? Where do you find some neat scripts that teach one some neat Perl?

C#

我对c#非常满意，但这两个真的让我很恼火:

Constructor-based initialization for immutable classes is less convenient, less intuitive (when you read the code you don't understand what you assign to what), has less IDE backing than inline object initialization. This makes you lean towards mutable classes inevitably. I know this has been mentioned before, but I strictly have problems with initialization syntax for immutable classes. switch is too verbose. Whenever I see a situation where a switch would be proper, I'm really inclined to use an if..else if.. just because it's more terse (~30% less typing). I think there should be no fallthrough for switch, break should be implied, and case should allow comma separated list of values.

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

Emacs Lisp

目前还没有足够的商业市场让人们全职用elisp编码 GNU Emacs vs XEmacs不兼容 Scheme中的嵌套函数很整洁，我希望elisp有[1]的概念 用于简单遍历列表的do循环或其他一些工具不是标准的(当然，您现在可以使用lambda进行映射)[1] (function (lambda(…)))[1]应该有一个简写

当然，Lisp的一个美妙之处在于，用一行代码在你自己的代码中修复这些问题并不难。但这并不是与生俱来的，这让我很恼火。

好的问题;我有点不好意思，因为我想不出更好的东西来恨，但说实话，法官大人，没什么好恨的。