MEL(玛雅表达语言):

Single dimensions arrays: Forcing me to manually sync two or more lists, or use delimited strings to simulate more complex data structures. Naturally, they're immutable too. Single threaded and slow: Causing the entire Maya application to hang while it completes a task. Bonus points for not being able to kill long operations, instead having to close and re-open Maya. Script sourcing paths aren't recursive: Meaning every directory you want to store scripts in must all be added to the script path. No namespaces: Forcing the inconsistent use of naming conventions to make sure global procedures don't collide. Modal commands: Each command is modal, meaning the Create, Modify, and Query operations are all handled by setting flags. This also forced the developers to cause most of the commands to return arrays Inconsistent command style: Most array commands actually return arrays, but the Tokenize command has to take an array as a reference which it then populates, rather than spitting out an array. This among other inconsistencies.

这些以及其他几个原因是AutoDesk采用Python作为次要脚本语言的原因，这带来了其他一些令人讨厌的因素:

并不是所有的MEL命令都受支持:大多数都受支持，但有时您会发现自己不得不使用MEL()函数来执行一些任意代码。更糟糕的是，你不得不对它进行所有烦人的逃避。 继承了模态命令风格:必须使用相同的create=True, query=True, edit=True的东西。

Erlang不在此列表中。在我最喜欢的语言中，但有一些缺陷是肯定的:

Syntax. This includes the 3 terminating tokens (,;.) and aesthetics, but more generally on how the semantic meaning of the code is expressed in text. An example is on how all lowercase tokens are atoms, so to refer to a function you can't just name it, you have to fun my_function/1, and ?PRECEDE_CONSTANTS_WITH_QUESTION_MARKS. Coming from Scheme, Haskell, etc. you just wish you could use a name. Library support is lame. This is mostly external libraries, but even the old standard library. Newer versions of Erlang have sensible POSIX regexes, but the old one had a pretty horrible library for basic string manipulation. You also never know when you're getting the value, or {ok, Value}. Related: non-uniform tools for building and distribution. Ruby has gem and rake, RSpec. Perl has CPAN. I'm unaware of decent equivalents in Erlang. The few Erlang specific tools are pretty strange. Mnesia is a great database, but coming from SQL you have lots of trivialities to learn. Same with the documentation @spec, which has a strange way of describing signatures. Often the functional paradigm hurts when you just want that little bit of mutation. Supposing you want a Hash Table, you can't just hack it as in Scheme, or SML. ets and dets alleviate some of the pain, but not much.

第六,奖金:

模块的导入和导出语法是一堆失败，这与Java的80多行导入语句没有什么不同。

综上所述，Erlang是一种乐趣^_^

Java:

没有过程编码，它编译成过程代码，所以让我使用它! 没有多重继承，试图用15,000个接口做同样的事情很糟糕。 约会课，我还需要多说吗。 我不能充分利用多态性。Java不会覆盖不同的参数类型来触发。 我想不出第五个原因，如果我知道，我会回来编辑这篇文章。

C#

它是一种很棒的语言，特别是在LINQ中，但是与c++相比泛型支持较差。它有如此多的潜力，但目前的实现只对强类型集合和类似的琐碎事情有用。下面举几个例子:

A generic argument cannot be restricted to enums (only classes or structs). A generic argument cannot be a static class. Why? This seems like a completely artifical restriction. You cannot specify that a generic type must have a constructor with a certain signature because you cannot have constructors on interfaces. Why not? It's just another method with the special name ".ctor". Similarly, you cannot specify that a generic type must have a static method, because those also cannot be declared on interface. Something like static T Parse(string s) would often come in useful. The compiler is too eager in prohibiting some casts which the programmer knows would actually work, so they require uglyness like (TheRealType)(object)value No covariance, eg. IList<string> cannot be converted to IList<object>, even though string[] can be converted to object[]. (Microsoft might be fixing this in C# 4.0, though.)

我讨厌Java(目前它是我最喜欢的语言)的五个方面，排名不分先后。

As much as I am a fan of Java Generics, there are a lot of oddities that arise from the way it was designed. As such there a myriad of annoying limitations with generics (some of which are the result of type-erasure). The way Object.clone() and the Cloneable interfaces work is totally broken. Instead of taking the high-road and making everything an object (a.la. SmallTalk), Sun wimped out created two distinct categories of data-types: Objects and primitives. As a result there are now two representations for fundamental data types and wierd curiosities such as boxing/unboxing and not being able to put primitives in a Collection. Swing is too complex. Don't get me wrong: there's a lot of cool stuff one can do with Swing but it is a great example of over-engineering. This final complaint is equally the fault of Sun and those whom have written XML libraries for Java. Java XML libraries are way too complicated. In order to simply read in an XML file, I often have to worry about what parser I am using: DOM or SAX? The APIs for each is equally confusing. Native support in the language for easily parsing/writing XML would be very nice. java.util.Date sucks. Not only is it unnecessarily complicated but all the useful methods have been deprecated (and replaced with others that increase complexity).

C

It's so flexible and powerful that it's really easy to write really awful, or downright dangerous code (or, if you prefer, "with great power comes great responsibility"). '=' for assignment, and '==' for equality; easy to confuse in 'if' statements. The implementation of a number of fundamental parts of the language are compiler-dependent; e.g. the size of the basic types, order of bits in bitfields, padding and byte order in unions. Bitfields aren't parameterisable (i.e. you can array of ints, but you can't have an array of bits). String handling could be improved.