Python

没有名称空间。 伪私有属性/名称混淆(主要使用getattr)。 文件路径操作分布在多个模块中。串在一起的os。路径调用是丑陋的，难以读取，并且在大多数情况下违反了DRY。常见的文件路径操作仍然没有方便的函数，比如获取目录下的文件列表。修复此问题的路径类型模块被拒绝。

([f for f in os.listdir('/file/path') if os.path.isfile(os.path. isfile)加入(/文件/路径,f))))

Python文档(我非常、非常、非常感谢有文档，而且它的格式很好，但我讨厌费力地在5000行快速入门使用示例中找到特定模块的单个函数文档(我正在查看optparse和logging))。内置类型在近10个不同的地方被零碎地记录。

VB6

仅Windows。 不再支持。 数组可以从任何数字开始，而不是全部归一化为0。 已编译的应用程序依赖于许多dll才能正常运行。 许多复杂的控件(如浏览器控件或复杂的代码段)在运行未编译的代码时往往会破坏IDE，但在编译后却可以正常工作。

JavaFX

Type inference sometimes doesn't behave like you would expect, so you often need to explicitly declare the type. def behaves likes const in C and not final in Java you can insert a value in a sequence by accessing an index >= seq.length, which should actually throw a compiler error (according to the reference). if you assign null to a String, it defaults to "". If you assign null to an Integer, a compiler error is thrown (in contrast to what the reference says). handles CheckedExceptions the same way as RuntimeExceptions

但这只是因为VB6毒害了整整一代程序员

我在一个曾经是VB6商店的VB . net商店工作，而在这里工作的每一个曾经是VB6开发人员的人都顽固地拒绝学习任何关于. net的知识。他们编写的代码就像VB6一样，他们的应用程序就像VB6应用程序一样糟糕。我的老板非常不鼓励使用LINQ，因为她担心其他人很难理解，这是事实，因为没有人想要理解它。

我认为如果微软只使用c#，我们会过得更好，这让我很难受，因为我认为花括号远不如VB的冗长结束语句。

C++

(除了lambda函数，我已经避免了Cpp0X中可用的东西)

不强制使用"this"访问成员变量，::GlobalFunction访问全局命名空间。 (更具体地说，算法中缺少lambda函数，将在0x thou中修复)中的所有内容 处理依赖文件/头文件和源文件 基本数据类型上的愚蠢名称(应该命名为uint8, int16等) const_cast功能

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.