C#

c#最让人讨厌的是:

(1)事件具有对所有侦听器的强引用，从而防止了侦听事件的任何东西的垃圾收集。如果你想看到这造成的问题，只需在网上搜索所有试图通过创建某种“弱引用事件处理程序”来解决问题的人。

(2)在调用一个事件之前，需要检查它是否等于null，这似乎应该由语言来处理。

(3) XML序列化器无法读取/写入XML文件中的注释。在手工修改XML文件和用c#编写的工具修改XML文件的环境中，情况并不好。可以通过使用原始的XmlDocument来解决，但如果能够将其抽象到一个类中会更好。

(4)构建过程不允许您直接访问xsd文件之类的东西，相反，您需要一个中间步骤，即创建一个c#部分类。这也会导致XAML文件出现问题，有时需要重新构建两次才能使更改正确地通过。

(5)不支持CPU intrinsic，如MMX和SSE 1,2,3,4，因此这些有价值的CPU特性在运行c#应用程序时无法使用。

其他没有进入我的前5名:

(6)不能将字段标记为属性，所有属性必须从一开始就显式地实现:

目前有:

public class MyClass {
    private int someInt;

    public int SomeInt {
        get {
                return someInt;
        }
        set {
                someInt = value;
        }
    }
}

想

public class MyClass {
    [IsProperty(public, get, set)]
    private int someInt;
}

(7)不支持多个返回值，例如:

public int, string, double MyFunction()
{
    ....
    return x,y,z;
}


public void TestMyFunction()
{
    int x, string y, double z = MyFunction();
}

(8)不支持协变返回类型

我对泛型实现有一些不满，但我就此打住。我认为c#是一种很棒的语言，可以完成所有的GUI、网络和配置管道，并且是我的首选语言，可以以一种可以长期支持的方式快速启动和运行。

PHP

如果你不能控制服务器，就没有调试功能，即使这样也很糟糕 大量糟糕的PHP代码给所有PHP程序员带来了坏名声 不一致的函数命名 如果我想要一个静态类型变量，就不能有一个静态类型变量(我90%的时间都是动态类型的忠实粉丝) REGISTER_GLOBALS是魔鬼

C

It's so flexible and powerful that it's really easy to write really awful, or downright dangerous code (or, if you prefer, "with great power comes great responsibility"). '=' for assignment, and '==' for equality; easy to confuse in 'if' statements. The implementation of a number of fundamental parts of the language are compiler-dependent; e.g. the size of the basic types, order of bits in bitfields, padding and byte order in unions. Bitfields aren't parameterisable (i.e. you can array of ints, but you can't have an array of bits). String handling could be improved.

C++

模板的语法 钻石传承问题 现代语言所拥有的标准库过多/缺乏(尽管boost也很接近)。 iostream IOStreams周围使用的语法

Python

空格是有意义的(有时) 强调关键词 有限的线程支持(至少目前) 用self代替this 空格是有意义的(有时)

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.

Ruby

无类型推断 方法/函数不是一级对象 变量的范围不是词法的，尽管块变量的范围是词法的 Def内部的Def super和super()的区别