最近Stack Overflow上有一群讨厌perl的人，所以我想我应该把我的“关于你最喜欢的语言你讨厌的五件事”的问题带到Stack Overflow上。拿你最喜欢的语言来说，告诉我你讨厌它的五件事。这些可能只是让你烦恼的事情，承认的设计缺陷，公认的性能问题，或任何其他类别。你只需要讨厌它，它必须是你最喜欢的语言。
不要拿它和其他语言比较，也不要谈论你已经讨厌的语言。不要用你最喜欢的语言谈论你喜欢的事情。我只是想听到你讨厌但能容忍的东西，这样你就可以使用所有其他的东西，我想听到你希望别人使用的语言。
每当有人试图把他们最喜欢的语言强加给我时，我就会问这个问题，有时是面试问题。如果有人找不出他最喜欢的工具的5个缺点，那他对它还不够了解，不能提倡它，也不能利用它赚大钱。他还没有在足够多的不同情况下使用它来充分探索它。他把它作为一种文化或宗教来倡导，这意味着如果我不选择他最喜欢的技术，我就错了。
我不在乎你用什么语言。不想使用特定的语言?那就不要。你通过尽职调查做出了明智的选择，但仍然没有使用它?好吧。有时正确的答案是“你有一个强大的编程团队，有良好的实践和丰富的Bar经验。改成Foo是愚蠢的。”
This is a good question for code reviews too. People who really know a codebase will have all sorts of suggestions for it, and those who don't know it so well have non-specific complaints. I ask things like "If you could start over on this project, what would you do differently?" In this fantasy land, users and programmers get to complain about anything and everything they don't like. "I want a better interface", "I want to separate the model from the view", "I'd use this module instead of this other one", "I'd rename this set of methods", or whatever they really don't like about the current situation. That's how I get a handle on how much a particular developer knows about the codebase. It's also a clue about how much of the programmer's ego is tied up in what he's telling me.
憎恨并不是衡量人们了解多少的唯一尺度，但我发现它是一个相当不错的尺度。他们讨厌的事情也让我知道他们对这个话题的思考有多好。
C#
1)缺乏为值类型编写泛型的实际能力。例如，任何白痴(好吧，大多数白痴)都可以编写一个例程，用c++计算int, float, double等列表的标准偏差，它写起来很简单，易于阅读，并作为快速的非泛型代码执行。我认为，如果你能用c#写一些东西，接近于达到这三个中的任何一个，而在其他两个上又不荒谬，你就是一个真正伟大的程序员。
2)协方差和反方差，尽管这被添加到4。
3)非常糟糕的LINQ文档(好吧，并不是语言的一部分)。
4)尝试使用foreach/迭代器，当我每次都想做同样的事情，除了上次略有不同(如连接一串字符串与逗号之间的单词和最后两个)。如果我用一个IEnumerable来写它，它很难写和读，而用一个for (int I =0 I <…)它并没有好到哪里去，而且效率更低。
5)我知道我会收到抱怨，但是缺少受控的例外。这并不需要像在java中那样实现(框架开发人员确实提出了一些很好的观点，为什么他们没有这样做)，但我很乐意看到编译器警告不喜欢受控异常的用户可以关闭。
Python:
1) It's a scripting language and not a fully compiled one (I'd prefer to be able to compile binaries—I don't care about bytecode). This is very annoying if I have to use very many libraries (i.e. everyone who uses my program has to install all the libraries, and this basically means no normal people will be able to, or have the patience to, properly set it up—unless I do a ton of work that should be unnecessary). I know ways to make binaries, but they don't always work, and I'm guessing they bundle the interpreter in the binaries anyhow (and I don't want that). Now, if I could get a bytecode compiler that would include copies of all the files that I imported (and only those) to be placed in my program's folder, that might be a suitable compromise (then no one would have to download extra libraries and such). It would also be nice if the compiled python files could be compressed into a single file with one specified as the file to run the program before this is done.
2)有时看起来有点bug;有几次，应该工作的代码根本没有工作(没有程序员错误)，特别是与“from moduleX import *”和其他导入相关的问题有关的代码，以及一些与全局和局部变量有关的问题。
3)最大递归深度可以更高。至少有一次，我觉得我需要它去更高的地方。
4)没有switch语句(更不用说允许数字、字符串和范围的语句)
5)新版本的Python似乎取消了很多有用的字符串操作，而且似乎没有简单的文档说明如何在没有它们的情况下做同样的事情。
6)强制自动垃圾收集(我希望能够手动执行，尽管不一定强制执行)。
7)没有预先制作的定时器类没有使用GUI(好吧，可能有一个，但在我所做的所有搜索之后，它肯定不方便找到!我确实找到了一些东西，但当我尝试时，它根本不起作用。)所谓计时器，我指的是每隔x秒执行一个指定函数的排序，并能在需要时关闭它，等等。
8)社区里举例的人很少告诉我们他们导入了哪些模块，以及他们是如何导入的。
9)与Lua集成的支持并不多。
10)似乎没有办法向一个类的特定实例(而不是整个类)添加一个额外的函数，除非你动态地向该类添加一个对象变量，该对象具有所需的函数(但仍然，你必须为此创建另一个类)。
Common Lisp
conditions aren't classes (since classes came later), even though their interface is almost identical
some of the names are just weird, e.g., flet / labels (only difference: scope), and defvar / defparameter (only difference: behavior when already defined), or any of the bit-twiddling functions (dpb, ldb, etc.)
packages are ... really hard to get right -- every time I think I understand them, they don't do what I want
built-in data structures and functions aren't as generic as they could be (e.g., why can't I define my own hash function portably?)
multiple namespaces for functions, variables, etc. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but CL made it too complex; Norvig has said he can't tell from the spec but there appear to be at least 7 namespaces)
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。
