C

字符串处理 内存管理(决定谁应该分配内存，谁应该释放内存) 没有名称空间(最大的) 标准库中没有列表/数组和其他基本DS

JavaScript

使用不带var的变量会自动使其成为全局变量 分号不是强制性的 比较运算符“==”和“===”以及它们用法上的混淆 没有适当的支持来处理二进制数据 再一次. .没有命名空间 变量没有块作用域。(来自C世界的人很讨厌)

R (R- project for statistics)

糟糕透顶的字符串支撑 对于一些简单的描述任务，比如交叉表格，是非常困难的 大型数据集操作是在内存中完成的。

Ruby。

Strange scoping rules - variables, constants, and methods each behave differently from each other. The rules change also depending on which keyword you used to create a closure. Or on whether you're in a class, eigenclass, object, module, or module's self. Then there's instance_eval, which changes the rules to a different set of rules. And they change again when a module is "included" or "extended", which themselves do different things to scope. And some sets of rules can't be emulated by metaprogramming, so you have to use eval. Unless you're on ruby 1.9, where all of this is different. Namespacing is basically useless. If you have Foo::File, then the stdlib File is probably broken for all of Foo. require statement is broken. If two files require eachother, the behavior of those files can change dramatically depending on which is loaded first from elsewhere. libraries change APIs dramatically and suddenly, so you have to require specific minor revision numbers of all of your dependencies. For every single ruby application on your system. The rubygems package system overrides "require" rather than putting files in the search path - because why use a system when you can replace it?

C#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.

C#

Cannot create a reference (var &t = struct) No local scope destructors (IDispose comes close but its not the same) ToString, i almost dislike that every object has it but it turns out i dislike everything using it like string.format does. I rather have things that accepts a certain type (like ints, floats, text, chars only). So instead of passing in any object i need to pass in something with a implicit typecast or interface. I ended up writing something like this to safely escape text for html which worked great. Cannot use a virtual typecast (blah)obj; does not work if obj does not inherit/has an interface of blah. Simple workaround is to supply an interface with a convert function. Has no local creation. Instead of writing var o = new Item(); i would like to write (something like) Item o() (with an automatic dispose if it has one).

我对特尔斐的5分:

Procedures and functions aren't necessarily distinguished from variables if not parameterized (eg, I can have statement such as x := GetPositionOnScreen; instead of x := GetPositionOnScreen();) Try/Finally and Try/Except needs to be nested (stated once before, but it's still one of mine as well). Not case sensitive. Can have a multiple objects (functions, global variables, local variables) named the same and Delphi will happily try to figure out what you mean. names should be unique. Odd if condition rules. a single conditional check doesn't require a () around it, but if I do multiple checks, I need a () around each one, and sometimes multiple nested sets for bigger checks. No inherited includes. If I need to reference functionality from the Windows unit in a base and an inherited form, I have to include Windows in both.