Python。

虽然前面提到了python处理作用域的奇怪方式，但我觉得最糟糕的结果是:

import random

def myFunction():

    if random.choice(True, False):
        myString = "blah blah blah"

    print myString

也就是说，if块内部的作用域与函数的其余部分相同，这意味着变量声明可以出现在条件分支内部，并且可以在条件分支外部访问。大多数语言要么阻止你这样做，要么至少为你提供某种严格的模式。

此函数有时会成功，但有时会抛出异常。虽然这是一个人为的例子，但这可能会导致一些微妙的问题。

下面是关于Perl 5的更多内容，来自创建了大量Perl模块，特别是在Moose上工作过的人的观点。

The horrible brokenness that is overloading and tied variables. Both of these features are a failed attempt to allow transparent extension to the built-in types. They both fail in various ways, and require module authors like myself to either implement horrible hacks to support them, or to say "never pass an overloaded object to the foo() method". Neither alternative is really acceptable. Lack of proper hooks into the compilation process and the meta-model. Moose in general, and role usage in particular, could be made much safer if the Perl core allowed us to affect the compilation process via a sane API that allowed us to hook into the meta-model (packages, classes, etc.) Lack of named parameters built into the language. Instead, everyone reinvents this. It's annoying. Similarly, lack of optional types. I don't want a static language, but the ability to specify types and constraints, particularly on function/method parameters, would be great. Perl 6 gets this right. Types are optional, but very rich, and there's no fundamental difference between built-in and user-defined types. The backwards compatibility police. This is more of a cultural issue. A number of the above issues can never really be fixed, since Perl 5 has a very strong commitment to backwards compatibility. So even if something were to be added that effectively replaced the current ball of shit that is tie and overloading, those features will never be removed. Of course, backwards compatibility is also one of Perl 5's greatest strengths. Bonus hate: Perl's built-in exception mechanism is a joke. The fact that exceptions may be a string or object makes for an eternity of fiddly exception-catching code, and the lack of a catch in the language syntax is the wart on the wart.

length属性很容易与length()函数混淆;请改用size() 在选择器字符串中插入变量的语法('" +$。Month + "')臭死了 $(event.currentTarget)并不总是适用于冒泡和捕获 属性语法("[class='foot']")在选择器语法(".foot")不返回任何结果的地方起作用 包含选择器([class~=done])有时会在JavaScript (this.className.search("done") > 0)工作时失败

BrainF * ck

你的亮点是图灵完备?!我可以在Perl正则表达式中做更多的事情! 缺少对象。来吧,人!就像，你好… 没有网络库。我只想刮一个网页，天哪。 没有一级函数。恭喜你——你可以同情你的Java朋友了。 一个无限的磁带存储，没有其他。这是如此的矫情，我们可能还在写Lisp。

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)

Erlang不在此列表中。在我最喜欢的语言中，但有一些缺陷是肯定的:

Syntax. This includes the 3 terminating tokens (,;.) and aesthetics, but more generally on how the semantic meaning of the code is expressed in text. An example is on how all lowercase tokens are atoms, so to refer to a function you can't just name it, you have to fun my_function/1, and ?PRECEDE_CONSTANTS_WITH_QUESTION_MARKS. Coming from Scheme, Haskell, etc. you just wish you could use a name. Library support is lame. This is mostly external libraries, but even the old standard library. Newer versions of Erlang have sensible POSIX regexes, but the old one had a pretty horrible library for basic string manipulation. You also never know when you're getting the value, or {ok, Value}. Related: non-uniform tools for building and distribution. Ruby has gem and rake, RSpec. Perl has CPAN. I'm unaware of decent equivalents in Erlang. The few Erlang specific tools are pretty strange. Mnesia is a great database, but coming from SQL you have lots of trivialities to learn. Same with the documentation @spec, which has a strange way of describing signatures. Often the functional paradigm hurts when you just want that little bit of mutation. Supposing you want a Hash Table, you can't just hack it as in Scheme, or SML. ets and dets alleviate some of the pain, but not much.

第六,奖金:

模块的导入和导出语法是一堆失败，这与Java的80多行导入语句没有什么不同。

综上所述，Erlang是一种乐趣^_^