C#

No easy way to check if a type is Numeric It means you are probably stuck using most of the microsoft stack, IIS and MSSQL Instead of being a specific tool for a specific problem, C# tries to be a language for every paradigm. Lack of community. Sure, there are starting to be open-source frameworks and libraries for C#. The same ones that have been available to Java developers for years. Hard to find good help. The internet is littered with poor examples of how to solve problems with C#. This goes back to problem #3.

数组部分选择不能给你所要求的。

[1]给出一个元素 A[1:2]给出一个元素，而不是[A [1]， A [2]] A[1:3]给出2个元素

我讨厌这样，但可能是因为我大部分时间都在Verilog上工作。

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。

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。

c# / .net:

Classes should be sealed by default There should be no lock statement - instead, you should have specific locking objects, and there should be methods such as Acquire which return disposable lock tokens. Corollary: there shouldn't be a monitor for every object. GetHashCode() and Equals() shouldn't be in System.Object - not everything's suitable for hashing. Instead, have an IdentityComparer which does the same thing, and keep the IComparer<T>, IComparable<T>, IEqualityComparer<T> and IEquatable<T> interfaces for custom comparisons. Poor support for immutability Poor way of discovering extension methods - it should be a much more conscious decision than just the fact that I'm using a namespace.

这些都是我想出来的，明天问我，我会想出一个不同的5个:)

VB。网

The behavior AndAlso / OrElse and And / Or seems backwards. Perhaps they should be switched. When can only be used for exception catching. The ability to do a When conditional would be nice for some other things. There is no friggin Refactoring in the VS IDE (not really the language's fault) like there is with C# Not <obj> Is Nothing. Yes, this has been remedied by IsNot, but for some reason I see the Not Is being used too often. (I see it much more frequently with devs who speak english as a second language, does it make better sense from that angle?) It doesn't require the () on ToString() and most functions. (Leads to sloppy coding habits) Having to do _ when breaking a line. It allows optional parameters. (Leads to sloppy coding habits) declaring an array is done by UpperBound and not by capacity. "Dim arr(2) as String" will actually hold 3 elements. Having = be a comparison and assignment operator.