Python

错误/异常在调试时是模糊的 我工作时不用 在类中使用__init__， __repr__， __str__等 不能简单地编译可执行文件(.exe或其他) 还有一件事我还没试过，但肯定会让我心烦

对于所有的c语言程序员来说，self对我来说更有意义，因为对象引用的是它的self

Python:

Global Interpreter Lock - Dealing with this complicates parallel processing. Lambdas functions are a bit clunky. No built-in ordered-dictionary type. Depending on how Python is compiled, it can use either UCS-2 vs UCS-4 for the internal Unicode encoding, many string operators and iterators may have unexpected results for multi-byte characters that exceed the default width. String slicing and iteration depend on the bit width rather than checking and counting characters. (Most other programming languages do similar things as well and have similarly odd behavior with these characters.) There are inconsistencies surrounding GUI frameworks for Python.

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.

Emacs Lisp

目前还没有足够的商业市场让人们全职用elisp编码 GNU Emacs vs XEmacs不兼容 Scheme中的嵌套函数很整洁，我希望elisp有[1]的概念 用于简单遍历列表的do循环或其他一些工具不是标准的(当然，您现在可以使用lambda进行映射)[1] (function (lambda(…)))[1]应该有一个简写

当然，Lisp的一个美妙之处在于，用一行代码在你自己的代码中修复这些问题并不难。但这并不是与生俱来的，这让我很恼火。

好的问题;我有点不好意思，因为我想不出更好的东西来恨，但说实话，法官大人，没什么好恨的。

再给c++投一票…仍然是我最喜欢的语言，有几个亲密的追随者——C和Python。以下是我目前最讨厌的名单，排名不分先后:

Plethora of integer types inherited from C - way too many problems caused by signed vs. unsigned mistakes Copy constructors and assignment operators - why can't the compiler create one from the other automatically? Variable argument madness - va_list just doesn't work with objects and I'm so sick of problems created with sprintf(), snprintf(), vsnprintf(), and all of their relatives. Template implementation is required to be fully visible at compile time - I'm thinking of the lack of "export" implementations or at least usable ones Lack of support for properties - I want to have a read-only member like "a.x" that can be read publicly and only assigned internally. I really hate the "val=obj.getX()" and "obj.setX(val)". I really want properties with access control and a consistent syntax.

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.)