第一个帖子，所以对我放松点:)…很棒的社区网站，顺便说一句!

我试着阅读其他所有的c#回复，这样我的回复就不会重叠了

c#……排名不分先后:

1) switch语句中的case没有fallthrough。如果没有转机……为什么必须显式的类型中断;呢?这只是弱智和令人困惑，因为它意味着没有休息的能力;!!

2)不能在子作用域中声明同名变量，但可以声明与类变量同名的变量?要么都允许，要么都不允许。否则，就没有意义了。

3)函数中没有可选/默认参数

4) finally{}中的异常应该隐式地捕捉每一行。或者至少，只有NullReferenceException异常。例如，在访问数据库后，应该总是清理。所以，finally块应该看起来像这样:

finally
{
  if(par1 != null)
    par1.Dispose();
  if(comm != null)
    comm.Dispose();
  if(conn != null)
    conn.Dispose();
}

如果可以写成这样，就会简洁得多:

finally
{
    par1.Dispose();
    comm.Dispose();
    conn.Dispose();
}

但是，不……你必须检查你是否正在访问一个空对象，否则它可能会从finally块抛出一个NullReferenceException。谁真的需要finally块中的异常呢?

5)泛型:你可以指定new()来实例化你的泛型对象，但是这个对象需要有一个默认构造函数。为什么不能指定一个签名，这样就不需要在还没有空构造函数的情况下创建空构造函数，而只使用已有的构造函数。

下面是关于Perl 5的更多内容，来自创建了大量Perl模块，特别是在Moose上工作过的人的观点。

The horrible brokenness that is overloading and tied variables. Both of these features are a failed attempt to allow transparent extension to the built-in types. They both fail in various ways, and require module authors like myself to either implement horrible hacks to support them, or to say "never pass an overloaded object to the foo() method". Neither alternative is really acceptable. Lack of proper hooks into the compilation process and the meta-model. Moose in general, and role usage in particular, could be made much safer if the Perl core allowed us to affect the compilation process via a sane API that allowed us to hook into the meta-model (packages, classes, etc.) Lack of named parameters built into the language. Instead, everyone reinvents this. It's annoying. Similarly, lack of optional types. I don't want a static language, but the ability to specify types and constraints, particularly on function/method parameters, would be great. Perl 6 gets this right. Types are optional, but very rich, and there's no fundamental difference between built-in and user-defined types. The backwards compatibility police. This is more of a cultural issue. A number of the above issues can never really be fixed, since Perl 5 has a very strong commitment to backwards compatibility. So even if something were to be added that effectively replaced the current ball of shit that is tie and overloading, those features will never be removed. Of course, backwards compatibility is also one of Perl 5's greatest strengths. Bonus hate: Perl's built-in exception mechanism is a joke. The fact that exceptions may be a string or object makes for an eternity of fiddly exception-catching code, and the lack of a catch in the language syntax is the wart on the wart.

Python

Standard library disobeys their own style guidelines in many places. (PEP-8) Py3k's super keyword is full of unwanted magic (you can't assign it to a different name, works without self, why do we have this explicit parameter at all?) Unicode support is incomplete in Py2k and sucks in Py3k (standard input in unicode, no binary data! WTF? Creating a new WSGI standard is hacky.) The GIL. Very limited multi-threading support (with CPython) PyPI (Python Package Index) sucks. Envious glance at rubygems

关于c#:

I hate that there is no keyword to specify which exceptions are thrown from a method like in java. Its a much better way to document exceptions than using an XML comment. I would also want a much better syntax for generic constraints like oring and anding of constraints. Why a method can't return more than one value? Lack of support for aspect oriented programming in the language. Why can't you annotate each one of the property accessors with an attribute? Lack of builtin regexp support like in perl.

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. -

Erlang不在此列表中。在我最喜欢的语言中，但有一些缺陷是肯定的:

Syntax. This includes the 3 terminating tokens (,;.) and aesthetics, but more generally on how the semantic meaning of the code is expressed in text. An example is on how all lowercase tokens are atoms, so to refer to a function you can't just name it, you have to fun my_function/1, and ?PRECEDE_CONSTANTS_WITH_QUESTION_MARKS. Coming from Scheme, Haskell, etc. you just wish you could use a name. Library support is lame. This is mostly external libraries, but even the old standard library. Newer versions of Erlang have sensible POSIX regexes, but the old one had a pretty horrible library for basic string manipulation. You also never know when you're getting the value, or {ok, Value}. Related: non-uniform tools for building and distribution. Ruby has gem and rake, RSpec. Perl has CPAN. I'm unaware of decent equivalents in Erlang. The few Erlang specific tools are pretty strange. Mnesia is a great database, but coming from SQL you have lots of trivialities to learn. Same with the documentation @spec, which has a strange way of describing signatures. Often the functional paradigm hurts when you just want that little bit of mutation. Supposing you want a Hash Table, you can't just hack it as in Scheme, or SML. ets and dets alleviate some of the pain, but not much.

第六,奖金:

模块的导入和导出语法是一堆失败，这与Java的80多行导入语句没有什么不同。

综上所述，Erlang是一种乐趣^_^