BrainF * ck

你的亮点是图灵完备?!我可以在Perl正则表达式中做更多的事情! 缺少对象。来吧,人!就像，你好… 没有网络库。我只想刮一个网页，天哪。 没有一级函数。恭喜你——你可以同情你的Java朋友了。 一个无限的磁带存储，没有其他。这是如此的矫情，我们可能还在写Lisp。

Python

没有Django for Python 3。 静态类型。是的，动态类型是很棒的东西，但有时我确实想让它成为静态的。 正确的unicode支持(在Python 3中修复) Construtors命名。我讨厌代码中的所有这些下划线。 线程的效率不是很高

Python 3

both tabs & spaces allowed for indentation And you'd think people learn from the past (Makefile). Just pick spaces and forbid tabs. YAML got it right. lack of popular third-party libraries The standard library is great, but a lot of what makes Python 2 so powerful lies in the third-party realm. Python 2 got this right :-). IEEE floats Floating points in programming languages are confusing because they're different from the way we use them in math. Instead, the number operations should be viewed as expressions that are only converted to a decimal point format when needed (i.e. printing to a screen). Maple and Mathematica did this right I think. the character set for identifiers is too restricted list.empty? is better than list.is_empty or even len(list) != 0. Similarly, process.kill! would be better than process.kill. Ruby and lisp got this right. when calling a function you must always write parentheses It would be nice if we could omit them in unambiguous cases. How is it again? dict.items or dict.items()? Ruby got this one right, too.

Scala是我最喜欢的语言。五件讨厌的事?容易:

Takes a long time to learn properly. I know you can write Scala as a 'better java'. That is what we used to say about C++ and C too. I agree this is an inevitable consequence of the deep ideas in the language. But still ... Methods vs. Functions: def f(x: Int) = x*x defines a method f, not a function f. Methods are not functions despite a lot of early Scala tutorial material blurring the distinction. The language tries to blur it too because if you supply a method in some places where a function is expected it is accepted. Do we have to have both methods and functions? Yes it is fundamental. But it was initially confusing to me. Composing classes or objects from mixins in the 'cake' pattern is prone to NPE's. e.g. trait X { val host: String; val url = "http://" + host } is a mixin that will NPE on instantiation, or not, depending on its position in the class declaration. The compiler could tell you if it will fail but doesn't. (In 2.7 anyway.) It is hard to diagnose the problem in complex inheritance graphs. Arrays in 2.8 rely on implicits to mesh with the main scala collection types. But implicits are not applied everywhere. An Array can be supplied where a Seq is expected. But an Option[Array] cannot be supplied where an Option[Seq] is expected. I know there are no completely 'right' ways to handle java Arrays. Type erasure. Enough said.

EL -表达式语言，${…}和#{…JSF 2.0 Facelets用于从底层Java代码中提取数据。

All the fun things, like method calls with parameters and annotation based naming is only present in the EL in Java EE 6 which is only available in Glassfish v3. It is a royal pain to 1) get the right jars for an earlier Servlet 2.5 container, and 2) getting them to work without interfering with any previous implementation available in the container. Having only an earlier version of JSF like 1.2, takes away the method calls and leave you to work with f:setPropertyActionListener - http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2009/07/22/say-sayonara-spal - which, trust me on this, is not very nice. The EL parser has no idea of where the snippet it is to parse and interpret came from, so you tend to give everything an id so you at least can identify which tag made it grumpy. Eclipse gives a warning at every EL method call as it is JSF 1.2. only too.

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.