VB6

仅Windows。 不再支持。 数组可以从任何数字开始，而不是全部归一化为0。 已编译的应用程序依赖于许多dll才能正常运行。 许多复杂的控件(如浏览器控件或复杂的代码段)在运行未编译的代码时往往会破坏IDE，但在编译后却可以正常工作。

Common Lisp

conditions aren't classes (since classes came later), even though their interface is almost identical some of the names are just weird, e.g., flet / labels (only difference: scope), and defvar / defparameter (only difference: behavior when already defined), or any of the bit-twiddling functions (dpb, ldb, etc.) packages are ... really hard to get right -- every time I think I understand them, they don't do what I want built-in data structures and functions aren't as generic as they could be (e.g., why can't I define my own hash function portably?) multiple namespaces for functions, variables, etc. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but CL made it too complex; Norvig has said he can't tell from the spec but there appear to be at least 7 namespaces)

JavaFX

Type inference sometimes doesn't behave like you would expect, so you often need to explicitly declare the type. def behaves likes const in C and not final in Java you can insert a value in a sequence by accessing an index >= seq.length, which should actually throw a compiler error (according to the reference). if you assign null to a String, it defaults to "". If you assign null to an Integer, a compiler error is thrown (in contrast to what the reference says). handles CheckedExceptions the same way as RuntimeExceptions

C#

I wish I could switch() on any type, and that case could be any expression. Can't use object initializer syntax with 'readonly' fields / private set autoprops. Generally, I want language help with making immutable types. Use of {} for namespace and class and method and property/indexer blocks and multi-statement blocks and array initializers. Makes it hard to figure out where you are when they're far apart or mismatched. I hate writing (from x in y ... select).Z(). I don't want to have to fall back to method call syntax because the query syntax is missing something. I want a do clause on query syntax, which is like foreach. But it's not really a query then.

我真的到达这里了。我认为c#非常棒，而且很难发现它有什么缺陷。

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.)

生存巨:

标准库的奇怪之处:它并不总是显示最佳实践，而且文档不足 硬编码FunctionX, TupleX类 缺乏属性:getter和setter是分开的，这违反了DRY，并且使得像FRP这样的事情几乎不可能实现 需要= _来初始化属性