Lua:

I understand the reasons, but seriously. Variables should be local by default, with a global keyword, not vice versa. I'm in general not a huge fan of the do/end style semantics. I much prefer C-style braces. Dynamic typing. I know, some of you go "Huh?" but I've been entirely spoiled by knowing exactly what type of data will be in a given variable. Constant if (type(var) == "string") then stuff() end is a pain. Variables need not be defined before they're used. I would much rather be explicit about what I'm trying to do than risk a typo causing what I like to call "wacky beans".

PHP:

同样，动态类型。 缺少闭包。你可以用$function($arg);但这不算。 同样，变量可以在定义之前使用。我有一个个人策略，总是在使用任何变量之前显式地将其初始化为已知值，并且我将其扩展到我可以控制的任何最佳实践文档。

C / C + +:

头疼=脖子疼。 不支持闭包。(我对c++ 0x很兴奋，因为c++ 0x有这些功能。) 静态类型。“等等，”你说。“你刚才说你不喜欢动态类型!”是的，我确实这么说过。但是静态类型也会让人头疼。(如果有选择的话，我仍然会选择静态类型。)最理想的情况是，我希望语言默认是静态类型的，但也支持动态类型。(我还想要一匹小马，500亿美元，还有整个世界。)

我对特尔斐的5分:

Procedures and functions aren't necessarily distinguished from variables if not parameterized (eg, I can have statement such as x := GetPositionOnScreen; instead of x := GetPositionOnScreen();) Try/Finally and Try/Except needs to be nested (stated once before, but it's still one of mine as well). Not case sensitive. Can have a multiple objects (functions, global variables, local variables) named the same and Delphi will happily try to figure out what you mean. names should be unique. Odd if condition rules. a single conditional check doesn't require a () around it, but if I do multiple checks, I need a () around each one, and sometimes multiple nested sets for bigger checks. No inherited includes. If I need to reference functionality from the Windows unit in a base and an inherited form, I have to include Windows in both.

C#

我的大部分抱怨都与假设c++约定自动成为c#的最佳选择有关

Class接口中不允许静态。这仍然是课程的一部分。为什么它不能成为界面的一部分?我不得不想出这么愚蠢的变通办法。 区分大小写。我知道在这一点上它会破坏遗留的应用程序，但为什么不区分大小写不是一开始的规则

对于。net的好处之一(不是c#特有的)

编译器不够聪明。在。net 3中。X，编译器可以找出“var”在编译时，为什么不其他常见的优化?我们都知道string和StringBuilder / immutable和mutable的区别。为什么编译器不为你转换它在很多情况下，显然StringBuilder比多个connect .s更好?我相信在默认情况下，编译器可以为我们做大量的其他优化(带有否决选项)，并为我们节省大量的时间。

Python:

处理数字太慢了。这不是什么大问题，除非…… 不能简单地在程序中包含导入时自动编译的C代码。 在py3k接管之前，我们仍然要忍受愚蠢的整数除法规则。 在py3k接管之前，像imap和izip这样的好东西仍然存在于一个单独的模块中。 在py3k接管之前，我们还有很多工作要做。

C是我最喜欢的，但也很糟糕。

It has the worst pre-processor ever. Why didn't they use something like m4? The whole header vs source file model is broken. Pascal got it right with units. It needs case ranges in the switch statement. Unions and casts from void* break the type system. This makes garbage collectors impossible. No nested functions. GNU C has this, but it should be standard. No boundary checking for allocated memory. There are tools that discover this but they don't detect errors where a piece of code miscalculates an address and writes to an allocated region which isn't related at all. I hate the whole pointer arithmetic. No bounds checking for arrays. Too many issues regarding portability. Even wchar_t differs across platforms.

Perl 5:

All the really good stuff nowadays seems to require mod_perl, which has low availability everywhere I want to go. Some really incredible functionality can be encapsulated in modules, but what is under the hood is often fragile or frightening: source filters, typeglobs, whatever Moose is doing... DateTime is brilliant but still made some very bad design decisions (not returning a stopwatch duration when subtracting two DateTime objects) Dual-lifed modules in core and on CPAN still cause conflicts module authors still put interactive stuff in their module configuration scripts so that they can't be automatically installed