Perl代表了一种可怕的语言。

No "public" or "private" or "protected" declarations/definitions. The "my $variable_name;" does not declare a global outside of a subroutine. The "my $variable_name;" gets accessed by subroutines but "use strict;" or other "use " creates warnings. Function prototypes end up unexplained, undemonstrated, unwanted, or some other excuse. Overzealous symbol use ends up "cool and quick" when reading globs of symbols. When one gets hot they like to stay hot, and need nothing to cool them. After a week of Perl, I end up unable to write a function and prototype it. What exactly is a module and does it actually NEED a ".pm" extension? If you want to create a public variable and access it from inside a subroutine, how do you accomplish this without creating a warning? Where do you find some neat scripts that teach one some neat Perl?

C#

Lack of multiple dispatch based on the runtime type of the method arguments. dynamic should solve most of this, but it hasn't been released yet. Interface implementation is declarative not structural. I really like the way Google's Go language is doing types Making asynchronous method calls is really bulky (and I'm pretty sure all threads are OS threads, not lightweight threads) No macro system. I'm not talking about C-style macros here; I'm talking LISP/Scheme style macros Operators are static methods and their signatures are overly constrained (and you can't create new ones).

Clojure

Lack of built-in syntax for optional and keyword parameters in function definitions. Sure, you can add it easily enough, but that means library writers don't use it. Pervasive destructuring hasn't proven to be a good substitute yet Lack of method combination (before/after/around methods of the sort found in Common Lisp) Too much reliance on Java interop, e.g. there's no built-in file IO Sometimes I want static typing. This one isn't pure hate; I usually prefer dynamic, and attempts to mix the two have been largely unsatisfactory There's no built-in fast binary serialization format for the built-in data structures, though I hear people are working on it

Python,:

No switch keyword. And NO, dictionary is not a replacement for it. Not even a bunch of elif statements. Inconsistent line break handling. Why can I do: test = (1, 2, 3) And not: from itertools import cycle, islice, izip Why can't I do: if stuff \ and foo \ or bar: return "Formated string with %(arg)s" % \ {'arg': "bloody slash"} without using slashes? There is not one obvious and only one way to do it. Python fails on its motto just like Java failed on "Write once run anywhere". # what somebody from an another language would do if not test.has_key('foo'): test['foo'] = 0 n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what an agnostic beginer would do try: test['foo'] += 1 except KeyError: test['foo'] = 1 n = test['foo'] vs # what you end up after looking for dictionary default value in the python doc test.setdefault('foo', 0) n = test['foo'] = test['foo'] + 1 vs # what I would do n = test['foo'] = test.get('foo', 0) + 1 And the worst is that they don't do exactly the same thing. There are subtle differences. Choice between spaces and tabs. There should be no choice. Pick on, set it in stone and stop fighting. Why can you do that: test = {} test['foo'] = 0 but not: test = [] test[] = 0

附注:" ".join(l)是优秀的人。不要抱怨它，这并不明显，但考虑到迭代器模式，这是正确的方法。

VB。网

默认情况下弱类型(Option Strict修复了这个问题，但默认情况下没有启用) 在方法上不需要括号(myFunction而不是myFunction()等等) 是否使用括号来定义数组/使用(myArray(12)而不是myArray[12]) 不支持直接递增(i++) 是否支持遗留的On Error关键字和整个VB6-Namespace

VBA(因为你认为你的语言不好)

Whitespace inside a line is rigidly enforced. Statements just end, and require a " _" to break to the next line, but not every line can be broken. No ++,--,+=,-= statements. Seriously? Arrays can begin at any index, not just 0. Some types (i.e.: fixed-point "Decimal" value) must be subtypes of Variant, and aren't available as their own type. != and <>. "=" is used as both comparator and assigning, instead of splitting into "=" and "==". "Option Explicit". UI hasn't been updated since 2000. Office2k7 didn't upgrade to VB.NET Most object models are non-sensical and overly verbose.