哇，我很惊讶SQL还没有出现在这里。我猜这意味着没有人喜欢它:)

跨实现的语法不一致 细微的代码差异可能会因为看似模糊的原因而产生巨大的性能影响 对文本操作的支持很差 入门成本低，但掌握这门语言的学习曲线陡峭 最大限度地标准化社区的最佳实践，这包括语法风格。

.．.还有一些额外的讨厌它的理由，不需要额外收费

the WHERE clause goes last, making it easy to prematurely execute an UPDATE or DELETE, destroying the whole table. Instead, the WHERE should go somewhere up front. It's difficult to implement relational division. I can set a value to NULL, but I can't test it for equality with NULL. I can check IS NULL, but that just complicates code -- needlessly so, in my opinion. Why do we need to completely respecify the formula for a GROUPed column, rather than setting an alias on the column and then GROUP BY the alias (or column index as with SORT)?

Python:

没有分隔符表示块的结束会导致歧义，这样自动缩进就不能处理格式不佳的代码。 没有宏(修饰符不算) 没有像haskell的cabal或perl的CPAN那样的库自动获取 不能声明变量const(是的，可以自己定义变量，但是…) 元编程被削弱 差点忘了全局解释器锁

我讨厌所有语言的五件事(至少就我所知):

Does what I say/type, not what I mean Will undoubtedly meet people who think they are experts in the language, but just make a mess of it (e.g. people who insist that removing comments/unused local variables will speed up execution time for a program) Unless the language is obsolete, then it will probably continue to evolve (either the actual language, or the concepts behind using it effectively) requiring you to actively develop with it so as to not fall behind. Can't modify the lexer/compiler (add in own context sensitive grammar) No perfect language (every language is missing some sort of useful feature that usually is either impossible to simulate, will unavoidable have an ugly interface or just require far too much time to implement and get it right)

Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

到目前为止，我最讨厌我最喜欢的语言的地方是我的选择总是在变。每次我以为我找到了命中注定的那个人，我就会发现我讨厌他的5个(或更多)地方。然后那边的草看起来更绿……

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)