Python

Standard library disobeys their own style guidelines in many places. (PEP-8) Py3k's super keyword is full of unwanted magic (you can't assign it to a different name, works without self, why do we have this explicit parameter at all?) Unicode support is incomplete in Py2k and sucks in Py3k (standard input in unicode, no binary data! WTF? Creating a new WSGI standard is hacky.) The GIL. Very limited multi-threading support (with CPython) PyPI (Python Package Index) sucks. Envious glance at rubygems

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。

但这只是因为VB6毒害了整整一代程序员

我在一个曾经是VB6商店的VB . net商店工作，而在这里工作的每一个曾经是VB6开发人员的人都顽固地拒绝学习任何关于. net的知识。他们编写的代码就像VB6一样，他们的应用程序就像VB6应用程序一样糟糕。我的老板非常不鼓励使用LINQ，因为她担心其他人很难理解，这是事实，因为没有人想要理解它。

我认为如果微软只使用c#，我们会过得更好，这让我很难受，因为我认为花括号远不如VB的冗长结束语句。

Python

那些我不理解的…

math.ceil() and math.floor() return floats, not integers (probably to avoid an integer overflow in the underlying C function - but why not cast to a Python long?) len() is a function not a method reload() is very limited, does not reload a module 9 times out of 10, only reloads an imported label if it is a module - i.e. cannot do from bar import foo; reload(foo) if foo is not itself a module Mutable default arguments have a single reference (why not a new instance each function call?!) All these underscored variables - if they are so private, how come we see inbuilt ones so much in code? Get a namespace! Strings are not mutable - maybe there is a good reason for this but I have come across many situations where I would like to tweak one particular character ...

那些基于实现有意义但令人讨厌的……

array.sort()不返回数组(我认为它发生在原地) 列表/生成器推导式不定义新的作用域(只是for循环的语法糖，对吗?)

以及几个在Python 3中修复的

默认为整数除法 Global只能引用顶级名称空间

下面是关于Perl 5的更多内容，来自创建了大量Perl模块，特别是在Moose上工作过的人的观点。

The horrible brokenness that is overloading and tied variables. Both of these features are a failed attempt to allow transparent extension to the built-in types. They both fail in various ways, and require module authors like myself to either implement horrible hacks to support them, or to say "never pass an overloaded object to the foo() method". Neither alternative is really acceptable. Lack of proper hooks into the compilation process and the meta-model. Moose in general, and role usage in particular, could be made much safer if the Perl core allowed us to affect the compilation process via a sane API that allowed us to hook into the meta-model (packages, classes, etc.) Lack of named parameters built into the language. Instead, everyone reinvents this. It's annoying. Similarly, lack of optional types. I don't want a static language, but the ability to specify types and constraints, particularly on function/method parameters, would be great. Perl 6 gets this right. Types are optional, but very rich, and there's no fundamental difference between built-in and user-defined types. The backwards compatibility police. This is more of a cultural issue. A number of the above issues can never really be fixed, since Perl 5 has a very strong commitment to backwards compatibility. So even if something were to be added that effectively replaced the current ball of shit that is tie and overloading, those features will never be removed. Of course, backwards compatibility is also one of Perl 5's greatest strengths. Bonus hate: Perl's built-in exception mechanism is a joke. The fact that exceptions may be a string or object makes for an eternity of fiddly exception-catching code, and the lack of a catch in the language syntax is the wart on the wart.

Objective Caml

Non-concurrent garbage collector. I can write multi-threaded programs all day long, but they're only ever going to get one of my eight cores at a time. This makes me sad. No type classes (or their moral equivalent). There's Furuse-san's GCaml, but it's A) not quite as good as type classes, and B) not in the INRIA distribution. Badly in need of a Cocoa bridge. Seriously. If I wrote more code with actual interfaces to DNA-based life forms, then I'd probably break down and write the damned thing myself. Why hasn't anybody else done this yet? Functors are abominable. Seriously, modules ought to be first-class values. There should be only one kind of function. Read Montagu and Rémy before you flame me for this. Should use LLVM for its back-end. Who do I have to murder to get OCaml to compile for my stupid little ARM6 core?

是的，我有一些问题。我仍然非常喜欢这门语言。这太棒了。