C++:

缺乏象征意义。 过度迷恋C语言的兼容性。 极其复杂的预处理器。 模板错误几乎是不可理解的。 没有垃圾回收。

PHP:

1)强迫我创造不必要的变量:

$parts = explode('|', $string);
$first = $parts[0];

2) lambdas的实现如此蹩脚，它大致相当于使用eval()，而且如此糟糕，我从未使用过它(参见http://www.php.net/create_function)。

3) try/catch系统只能捕获大约80%可能发生的错误。

4) Regex支持和lambda支持一样蹩脚，因为它必须在常规字符串中编写，这使得最难学的编程工具之一变得困难了三倍。PHP应该是一种“简单”的语言吗?

5)没有办法安全地从$_POST中取出东西，而不写两次或构建自己的函数，或使用'@'操作符:

$x = isset($_POST['foo']['bar']) ? $_POST['foo']['bar'] : null;

6)额外答案:“@”。如果你懒得写正确的代码，那就添加'@'，这对以后调试你的代码的人来说太糟糕了。

F#

Type inference is limited. It propagates forward only. F# won't try to infer an object type based on the methods and properties used: you'll get "lookup of indeterminate object type" errors when it doesn't have a clue. One cannot mix floats and ints: 1 + 2.3 is a type error. It's a little awkward to have to create a builder object in order to define a monad or computation expression. In Haskell or Scala, you can define the monad operations directly on the monadic object. Though the #light syntax is preferred, the indentation rules are sometimes not very intuitive or become cumbersome.

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:

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。

Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.