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。

Perl 5:

All the really good stuff nowadays seems to require mod_perl, which has low availability everywhere I want to go. Some really incredible functionality can be encapsulated in modules, but what is under the hood is often fragile or frightening: source filters, typeglobs, whatever Moose is doing... DateTime is brilliant but still made some very bad design decisions (not returning a stopwatch duration when subtracting two DateTime objects) Dual-lifed modules in core and on CPAN still cause conflicts module authors still put interactive stuff in their module configuration scripts so that they can't be automatically installed

Java

已检查的异常 类型擦除 缺少操作符重载(例如BigInteger/BigDecimal) 缺少regexp/date/duration /复杂文字 对不可变性的支持很差

TCL

这是我最喜欢的语言，几乎可以做任何事情。多年来，它已经(慢慢地，非常缓慢地)演变为解决大多数让我烦恼的事情。而且这门语言非常灵活，很容易实现语法来覆盖那些仍然困扰我的东西。但是语言中有一些东西是不能轻易改变的，只是打破了它的禅意:

Arrays (of the associative kind, what Perl calls hash) don't have proper value semantics. This makes them awkward to pass to and return from functions. Also, this means that they can't be nested. For this reason dicts (dictionaries) were invented but too late, the nice array access syntax: $array($foo) is now forever taken by stupid arrays for backwards compatibility. We're now stuck with: dict get $dict $foo which is much more verbose and to me feels less readable. No real closures. Though it can be emulated somewhat by globals or namespaces but that defeats the reason for closures in the first place. Although, I can't really see for now how closures can be implemented in a pure value semantics system. Teacup is hard to use and is not at all intuitive compared to all other repository tool out there. This is more ActiveState's fault than tcl-core and doesn't really break tcl's Zen when coding but it is still very annoying.

Python

那些我不理解的…

math.ceil() and math.floor() return floats, not integers (probably to avoid an integer overflow in the underlying C function - but why not cast to a Python long?) len() is a function not a method reload() is very limited, does not reload a module 9 times out of 10, only reloads an imported label if it is a module - i.e. cannot do from bar import foo; reload(foo) if foo is not itself a module Mutable default arguments have a single reference (why not a new instance each function call?!) All these underscored variables - if they are so private, how come we see inbuilt ones so much in code? Get a namespace! Strings are not mutable - maybe there is a good reason for this but I have come across many situations where I would like to tweak one particular character ...

那些基于实现有意义但令人讨厌的……

array.sort()不返回数组(我认为它发生在原地) 列表/生成器推导式不定义新的作用域(只是for循环的语法糖，对吗?)

以及几个在Python 3中修复的

默认为整数除法 Global只能引用顶级名称空间

C#

Lack of multiple dispatch based on the runtime type of the method arguments. dynamic should solve most of this, but it hasn't been released yet. Interface implementation is declarative not structural. I really like the way Google's Go language is doing types Making asynchronous method calls is really bulky (and I'm pretty sure all threads are OS threads, not lightweight threads) No macro system. I'm not talking about C-style macros here; I'm talking LISP/Scheme style macros Operators are static methods and their signatures are overly constrained (and you can't create new ones).