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.

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。

C++

cryptic error-messages when templates are involved lack of template constraints (many cases can be worked around with template metaprogramming, but this will result in unreadable code (at least for average programmers) in most cases) pointer to member-function syntax c++ standards committee should release offical standards more often (or at least release separate updates to the standard library itself), i mean really TR1 was released 2005, and we still dont have a shared_ptr, bind and alike in the standard library. -

我自己最讨厌c++的5个地方:

自动生成构造函数、析构函数和赋值操作符。伙计，每当我在课上没有声明什么东西时，这意味着我不需要它，而不是我忘记了。你们这些编辑们，听到了吗?!

[4]模板语法。哦，我真的需要输入所有这些“<”和“>”，每当我决定从类主体提取定义?

[3]字符串。天啊，我受够了“const char*”，我必须处理NULL情况，我必须浪费O(N)来获得它的长度，我必须为concat操作分配缓冲区。

[2] Macroprocessing。每当我不明白，什么是我的编译器，我开始寻找宏。

[1]操作符重载。我看到代码“A + B * C”，在我看到A、B和C的实际类型之前，我说不出这个代码是关于什么的。

C#

Reference types are nullable by default; in-language null keyword is untyped. Lack of discriminated unions Exceptions as default, non-exceptional error handling method - there's not much of an alternative. archaic switch statement syntax and limitations Needless distinction between constructors + static methods Static methods can't be part of an interface Lack of by-shape interface implementation rather than explicit interface implementation - leading to numerous language design hacks such as the linq query syntax, foreach, collection & object initializers -- none of which can be flexibly reused. For example, the object initializer syntax may be nice, but plays poorly with immutable objects. Cannot inherit "interface" of a class independently of implementation - leading to code duplications and overarchitected code that provides interfaces, abstract base classes, a few common implementations, and no way to pick and choose the bits of each to use. Also; leads to too many code that's tightly coupled to a particular implementation since it's common to explicitly refer to the implementation type rather than an interface. Cannot multiply inherit via composition since a classes "interface" is tightly coupled to it's implementation; effectively lack of mixins. The above limitations of interfaces lead to a proliferation of virtually identical interfaces that don't overlap naturally in any kind of type hierarchy. IComparable vs. IEquatable vs. IComparable<T> vs object.Equals vs. operator == etc. etc. By extension, making a custom type that satisfies all these things is a lot more work than necessary (in particular for collection classes). Obviously, the language designers realize this, hence the various workarounds for things like linq, foreach and collection initializers which work by-shape rather than by-interface. Redundant use of parentheses and braces rather than layout-is-structure. Return values can be ignored, limiting the effectiveness of type inference. Enums aren't a normal type and can't have methods. Also, enum values aren't typesafe and may be initialized to 0 despite not having a 0 value. Mixing metaphors by lumping flag and non-flag enums together. Lack of proper value type support. Value types can't be inherited, have different constructor semantics, and perform poorly due to CLR limitations. Also, confusing semantics regarding value types: some values are really values (and can't be modified), and others are really non-aliased, non-null references (variables). This gets particularly confusing with regards to the next issue: Semantic distinction between fields and properties, particularly in conjunction with lack of mutability modifier (ala C++'s const) Can't specialize generics Cannot provide default generic type parameters (e.g. factory generics) lack of typedef makes generics a pain to use (using is a limited but good-to-know substitute!) Can't genericize over things other than types (e.g. functions, plain values, or names). This means you can't do something like make a generic implementation of a dependancy property leading to, well, nasty implementations of things like dependancy properties and the overuse of code-snippets and poorly readable code as a result. Limited capability to specify generic type requirements e.g. generic sum method that takes both int, double and a bigint (without tricky and often slow hacks). An interface method implementation or virtual method override cannot return a more specific type or accept a more general type; i.e. limited co/contravariance support even in C# 4.

Haskell:

空间泄漏——懒惰的默认代价——也许代价太高了? 甚至像head和tail这样的纯函数也会调用错误并引导您进入IO。 fail from Monad -带回MonadZero。 Num类-(+)应该在AdditiveGroup或类似的类型中。 那个单子不是一个应用程序。