我讨厌内梅尔的五个方面:

局部函数不能让步 编译lambda的能力有时取决于它是否内联 元组的值/引用类型语义不一致 数组下标和类型参数之间偶尔会出现歧义 缺乏普遍采用

REBOL

REBOL是我最喜欢的语言之一。我不能说我有一个最喜欢的，尽管Haskell排名也很高。

Its odd syntax scares off many developers before they even give it a try. use [email rules url] [ ; A small DSL that sends email to people about URLs. rules: [ some [ into [ set email email! set url url! (send/subject email url reform [ "Check Out" url ]) ] ] ] ; Global context notify: func [ [catch] dsl [block!] ] [ unless parse dsl rules [ throw make error! "You screwed up somehow." ] ] ] notify [ [ a@b.com http://www.google.com ] [ b@c.com http://www.yahoo.com ] ] Recursive dialects are very easy to validate with PARSE but very difficult to evaluate. (Stacks can be helpful here.) REBOL has very poor integration with many popular technologies, particularly XML. I suspect this is partly arrogance, because the REBOL BLOCK! datatype can do almost everything XML can do. However, the real world has XML in it. No Unicode. Thanks to AltMe, REBOL's user community is very insular. I can understand why they want to use AltMe. It's written in REBOL and shows off its strengths. Unfortunately it also puts them off on their own little island.

即将到来的REBOL 3有望解决许多这些问题，除了最后一个。

C++

编写一个简单的代码片段要花很多时间。 对于(std::vector::const_iterator iter =[…] Vector.remove()不移除。 Vector.push_front()不存在。 头文件 没有λ 如果至少有一个虚函数，则没有自动空虚析构函数。

C

字符串操作。

必须手动处理字符串缓冲区是一个容易出错的痛苦。由于如此多的计算实际上是移动和修改字符串(计算机并不像人们想象的那样用于大型数字运算)，因此能够使用托管语言或c++的字符串对象来处理这些非常好。当我必须在直发C时，感觉就像在流沙中游泳。

德尔菲:

IDE有点不稳定。 代码洞察有时令人困惑。 调试有时是有bug的。 更新多个项目文件可能会很麻烦。 如果启动时一个或多个包不可用，错误消息会弹出几次。

Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.