Lua

我喜欢这门语言，但是有一些事情困扰了我很多年!

No (built-in) support of binary operations (as of 5.1, it might come with 5.2). Should have a built-in binary buffer implementation, allowing for example in place long string concatenation. I know it doesn't fit well in the syntax, but sometime I miss longVariableName++ or verboseVariableName += 5. Reference assumes knowledge of C (I have it but it is a minus for newcomers) and defers some help to C reference! And sometime it is too terse. It is starting to have a good deal of libraries, but you have to get them from various places. On the other hand, the download is very small! ;-)

Ruby是我最喜欢的语言，以下是我不喜欢的语言:

绿色线程+阻塞C库=巨大的失败 慢得令人痛苦 标准库本身与其使用bang!方法 模块包含+扩展是混乱的。 “开放类”不能是范围-我想添加一个String#dostuff，但我不希望泄漏到所有的第三方库 没有二进制部署打包解决方案。

以下是我不喜欢Java的一些地方(它不是我最喜欢的语言):

Generics type erasure (i.e. no reified generics) Inability to catch multiple exceptions (of different types) in a single catch block Lack of destructors (finalize() is a very poor substitute) No support for closures or treating functions as data (anonymous inner classes are a very verbose substitute) Checked exceptions in general, or more specifically, making unrecoverable exceptions checked (e.g. SQLException) No language-level support for literal collections No type-inference when constructors of generic classes are called, i.e. the type parameter(s) must be repeated on both sides of the '='

C#

它是一种很棒的语言，特别是在LINQ中，但是与c++相比泛型支持较差。它有如此多的潜力，但目前的实现只对强类型集合和类似的琐碎事情有用。下面举几个例子:

A generic argument cannot be restricted to enums (only classes or structs). A generic argument cannot be a static class. Why? This seems like a completely artifical restriction. You cannot specify that a generic type must have a constructor with a certain signature because you cannot have constructors on interfaces. Why not? It's just another method with the special name ".ctor". Similarly, you cannot specify that a generic type must have a static method, because those also cannot be declared on interface. Something like static T Parse(string s) would often come in useful. The compiler is too eager in prohibiting some casts which the programmer knows would actually work, so they require uglyness like (TheRealType)(object)value No covariance, eg. IList<string> cannot be converted to IList<object>, even though string[] can be converted to object[]. (Microsoft might be fixing this in C# 4.0, though.)

C:

Lack of distinction between function pointers (executable) and data pointers (you really don't want to execute this). Extreme unreadability. Making code look like it does what it does is orders of magnitude more difficult than making it do the task in the first place. Lack of clear support for lisp-think. Doing functional things is possible, barely, but it's not clear. Serious inconsistency between libraries about how error codes are returned. Antiquated string handling. The strings aren't strings, they're null-terminated blobs. This is all manner of wince-worthy.

Lisp:

()需要按shift键。每次我口齿不清的时候，我就把它和[]交换。

Perl

我喜欢这门语言，我不想添加已经被使用过的东西，但还没有人提到过这一点，所以我就把它扔到锅上。当我使用这个特性时，我发现这是我一生中最可怕的经历(而且我用过汇编语言):

write()和format()函数。

它们的语法是最糟糕、最丑陋、最可怕的，但是它们并没有提供比printf()更好的功能更多的功能。任何人都不应该尝试使用这两个函数进行任何输出，因为它们有多糟糕。

我相信有人会不同意，但是当我研究它们，希望它们能解决我的问题时，我发现它们是一个“痛苦的世界”(引用Big Lebowski的话)，我希望Perl6已经消除了它们，或者更好的是完全重写它们，使它们在某种程度上更可用和有用。