Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

SAS

从不有自己的想法(一切都是借来的)。 贪婪于庞大的数据集。 使用Java，但从未学习过什么是对象。 窃取Perl，但将其隐藏在其数据步骤中。 统计学家总是撒谎!

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。

Ruby:

太慢了 自负的群体 这不是闲谈 在nil上调用方法时出错，而不是返回nil à la Objective C 非线程

JavaScript

Every script is executed in a single global 'namespace'...something which you have to look out for when working with scripts from different sources If a variable is used but hasnt been defined before hand, it is considered a global variable Browser vendors making up standards as they please, making coding for us developers using such a beautiful language harder than it should be Case-Sensitivity - considering that there is no decent IDE for developing js with compile-time checking Workarounds (such as the use of hasOwnProperty method) to perform some, otherwise simple operations.

Python

慢 我终于习惯了打印语句，现在有了这个打印函数??(py3k) 从来没有得到py2exe或cxFreeze工作 不标准化(轻微挑剔) 递归深度只有100 (iirc)