D

we have in operator, but no !in operator? dynamic array 'length' property - ya canna do array.length += 512; no exit statement - as in python's sys.exit(), etc. Sure, you can call C's exit, but unflushed output don't get flushed associative array literals + string literals suck string literals found as is inside an associative array literal are interpreted as static, thus this char[][char[]] hash = ["hello":"world","goodbye":"angels"]; doesn't work without some extra casting due to different length string literals despite a. I didn't ask it to be interpreted as static arrays b. static arrays aren't allowed in associative arrays anyways cyclic dependencies disallowed (want to port that java lib? Have fun redesigning the class hierarchy)

谁帮我检查一下;不确定它们是否都有意义。

Lua:

I understand the reasons, but seriously. Variables should be local by default, with a global keyword, not vice versa. I'm in general not a huge fan of the do/end style semantics. I much prefer C-style braces. Dynamic typing. I know, some of you go "Huh?" but I've been entirely spoiled by knowing exactly what type of data will be in a given variable. Constant if (type(var) == "string") then stuff() end is a pain. Variables need not be defined before they're used. I would much rather be explicit about what I'm trying to do than risk a typo causing what I like to call "wacky beans".

PHP:

同样，动态类型。 缺少闭包。你可以用$function($arg);但这不算。 同样，变量可以在定义之前使用。我有一个个人策略，总是在使用任何变量之前显式地将其初始化为已知值，并且我将其扩展到我可以控制的任何最佳实践文档。

C / C + +:

头疼=脖子疼。 不支持闭包。(我对c++ 0x很兴奋，因为c++ 0x有这些功能。) 静态类型。“等等，”你说。“你刚才说你不喜欢动态类型!”是的，我确实这么说过。但是静态类型也会让人头疼。(如果有选择的话，我仍然会选择静态类型。)最理想的情况是，我希望语言默认是静态类型的，但也支持动态类型。(我还想要一匹小马，500亿美元，还有整个世界。)

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.

JavaScript

Function object syntax: f = new Function( "foo", "bar", "return foo+bar;" ); (It takes n arguments, the first n-1 are arguments for the function, then nth is the actual function, in string form. Which is just silly.) Function arguments can be repeated. f = new Function( "foo", "foo", "return foo;" ); The last repetition is the only one ever used, though: f( "bye", "hi" ) // returns "hi" f( "hi" ) // returns undefined E4X should just die. My users are always complaining that it doesn't work the way they think it will. Let's face it, when you need a page and a half of psuedocode for a setter, it's time to rethink things. A standard notion of stdin/stdout/stderr (and files!) would be nice. null != undefined It's irritating to have to handle them both. Sometimes it's useful, but most languages manage to limp along fine with one.

Python

1-3:没有一个明显的打包/构建/文档系统的选择(比如Perl的cpan、POD或Ruby的gem、rake、rdoc)。 4: Python 3.0是不兼容的，需要两个源分支(2。x和3.x)用于每个Python项目。但是Python 3.0的不兼容性还不足以证明它的合理性。大多数py3k的优势都太微妙了。 5: Jython, IronPython, CPython不兼容。

我知道我迟到了，但恨是永恒的!

Java

Runtime.exec(). So, if I don't manually clear the STDOUT and STDERR buffers, my code will hang? Wow. Die, plz. Null Pointer Exceptions. Responsible programming means I have to treat most objects like they're unexploded bombs, which is kind of a pisser in an object-oriented language. And when the inevitable happens I kinda need to know which object blew up in my face, but Java apparently feels telling me would be cheating. File I/O. Why do I have to jump through this many hoops to read a dang text file? And when copying files, I have to funnel the source file into my code and manually handle the output byte buffer? You're serious? Primitives vs. Primitive Wrappers. Note that Java now has a number of features that allow you to treat primitives and their wrapper objects as interchangeable in some places, but not in others; don't worry, the compiler will let you know which is which. This feels like a hack to work around a fundamentally broketastic design decision. And it is. (EDIT: Actually, the compiler is a much crappier safety net than I thought, particular when doing equality checks. If `a` and `b` are integers, `a == b` is guaranteed to behave as expected only if at least one of them is of type `int`. If they're both type `Integer`, then that statement will do what you think only if the two numbers are between -128 and 127. `Integer a = 1000; Integer b = 1000; return a == b;` will return `false`. Really.) XML. I have this dirt-simple little XML file I need to create and I have to do what?