Lua

我喜欢用Lua编程，但下面是让我头疼的事情:

没有办法用这种语言编写API——不像C .h文件或Java接口 语言有一流的功能，但有人忘记告诉设计库的人。 编写函数的语法太重量级了。 语法分为语句和表达式。 表达式形式是贫乏的:没有let形式，没有真正的条件表达式，……

尽管如此，我还是坚持认为Lua非常棒:-)

我觉得最喜欢的语言是不可能选择的。动态类型和静态类型不能进行比较，所以我只列出我使用的是哪一种类型

C++:

Template metaprogramming syntax is ugly. An implicit ::value would make it much more concise ->. Why can't the compiler figure out that I'm doing a ptr.thing and just do -> for me? I hate whitespace. So the whole vector<vector<int>> has to be vector<vector<int> > makes me get the jitters and then I can't focus whenever I see that line of code and I end up trying to figure out a way to use int[][] or something Macros. I personally love the concept of macros. But with C++, I that the system is a hack I'm a hater of ;

Python:

字符串是不可变的。这样我就不能用string[4]="b" 通过引用隐式复制列表。哪个泄漏到[[0]*width]*height问题 缺少尾递归(每当我输入错误递归函数时，我必须安装IDLE以避免吐出1000条错误消息) 字典键不接受列表/字典 缺乏深度范围。当我做一个列表推导时，我不希望其中的变量影响到外部作用域

我可以为Python添加另一个:

给定一个列表l = [l1, l2，…]， ln]，那么repr(l) = [repr(l1)， repr(l2)，…， repr(ln)]，但str(l) != [str(l1)， str(l2)，…， str(ln)] (str(l) = repr(l))。之所以这样做，是因为列表中可能有模糊的条目，如l = ["foo]， [bar，"， "]，["]， str(l)将返回"[foo]， [bar，]，[]"，这“可能会使用户感到困惑”。然而，这使得str不可能仅用于转储数据，因为list杀死了“仅以可读格式转储数据”。Augh !

Python:

缺少静态类型 默认参数处理(特别是可以为未来的调用者更改默认参数的事实!) 需要的下划线太多(构造函数必须调用__init__) 缺少适当的私有成员和函数(惯例只是说大多数以下划线开头的东西都是私有的，除了像__getattr__这样的东西不是) 有趣的打印到文件的语法(但他们在Python 3中修复了这个问题)

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.

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