c#:

1)静态方法必须是类的成员

2)静态扩展方法只能添加到静态类中

3)接口函数的实现不会被标记为“override”之类的东西来显示它们来自基类或接口(这使得你很难确保你正在重写你所期望的方法(具有正确的签名))。

我只有3个。我想那很好。

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.)

C++:

缺乏象征意义。 过度迷恋C语言的兼容性。 极其复杂的预处理器。 模板错误几乎是不可理解的。 没有垃圾回收。

c#:

1)静态方法必须是类的成员

2)静态扩展方法只能添加到静态类中

3)接口函数的实现不会被标记为“override”之类的东西来显示它们来自基类或接口(这使得你很难确保你正在重写你所期望的方法(具有正确的签名))。

我只有3个。我想那很好。

TCL

这是我最喜欢的语言，几乎可以做任何事情。多年来，它已经(慢慢地，非常缓慢地)演变为解决大多数让我烦恼的事情。而且这门语言非常灵活，很容易实现语法来覆盖那些仍然困扰我的东西。但是语言中有一些东西是不能轻易改变的，只是打破了它的禅意:

Arrays (of the associative kind, what Perl calls hash) don't have proper value semantics. This makes them awkward to pass to and return from functions. Also, this means that they can't be nested. For this reason dicts (dictionaries) were invented but too late, the nice array access syntax: $array($foo) is now forever taken by stupid arrays for backwards compatibility. We're now stuck with: dict get $dict $foo which is much more verbose and to me feels less readable. No real closures. Though it can be emulated somewhat by globals or namespaces but that defeats the reason for closures in the first place. Although, I can't really see for now how closures can be implemented in a pure value semantics system. Teacup is hard to use and is not at all intuitive compared to all other repository tool out there. This is more ActiveState's fault than tcl-core and doesn't really break tcl's Zen when coding but it is still very annoying.

Ruby:

重要的空白。对于解释器，行尾=语句的结束，除非看起来语句应该继续(或者显式转义换行符)。 慢 在线文档不如Python的好(为了辩护，Python的很棒) 我刚才提到慢了吗?