c# / .net:

Classes should be sealed by default There should be no lock statement - instead, you should have specific locking objects, and there should be methods such as Acquire which return disposable lock tokens. Corollary: there shouldn't be a monitor for every object. GetHashCode() and Equals() shouldn't be in System.Object - not everything's suitable for hashing. Instead, have an IdentityComparer which does the same thing, and keep the IComparer<T>, IComparable<T>, IEqualityComparer<T> and IEquatable<T> interfaces for custom comparisons. Poor support for immutability Poor way of discovering extension methods - it should be a much more conscious decision than just the fact that I'm using a namespace.

这些都是我想出来的，明天问我，我会想出一个不同的5个:)

Erlang

没有静态推断 就像在哈斯凯尔发现的一样。这 会导致运行时错误和一个 有认真写代码还是使用 透析器(1)发现 差异。动态类型是 慢的:也被认为是慢的; 与C、Java等语言相比，它几乎是未知的; 的lists(3)模块有时相当精简 我缺少用于列表处理的有用函数 (就像在数据。例如Haskell中的List); 让我在每句话的结尾都加上 在从句中，和。最后是后者。

Lua

我喜欢用Lua编程，但下面是让我头疼的事情:

没有办法用这种语言编写API——不像C .h文件或Java接口 语言有一流的功能，但有人忘记告诉设计库的人。 编写函数的语法太重量级了。 语法分为语句和表达式。 表达式形式是贫乏的:没有let形式，没有真正的条件表达式，……

尽管如此，我还是坚持认为Lua非常棒:-)

.NET框架(库)

嵌套类型很少使用(例如MessageBoxButton应该是MessageBox.Button) 可变结构体(Rect, Point) 系统名称空间中有太多东西 太多不同的平等概念(对象。等于,对象。ReferenceEquals, operator ==， operator !=， IComparable.CompareTo() == 0) 数组的成员是可变的，但长度是不变的。

还有一点:

XmlSerialization不适用于不可变类型

C++

Strings. They are not interoperable with platform strings, so you end up using std::vector half of the time. The copy policy (copy on write or deep copy) is not defined, so performance guarantees can not be given for straightforward syntax. Sometimes they rely on STL algorithms that are not very intuitive to use. Too many libraries roll their own which are unfortunately much more comfortable to use. Unless you have to combine them. Variety of string representations Now, this is a little bit of a platform problem - but I still hope it would have been better when a less obstinate standard string class would have been available earlier. The following string representations I use frequently: generic LPCTSTR, LPC(W)STR allocated by CoTaskMemAlloc, BSTR, _bstr _t (w)string, CString, std::vector a roll-my-own class (sigh) that adds range checking and basic operations to a (w)char * buffer of known length Build model. I am sick to death of all the time spent muddling around with who-includes-what, forward declarations, optimizing precompiled headers and includes to keep at least incremental build times bearable, etc. It was great in the eighties, but now? There are so many hurdles to packing up a piece of code so it can be reused that even moms dog gets bored listening to me. Hard to parse This makes external tools especially hard to write, and get right. And today, we C++ guys are lacking mostly in the tool chain. I love my C# reflection and delegates but I can live without them. Without great refactoring, I can't. Threading is too hard Language doesn't even recognize it (by now), and the freedoms of the compiler - while great - are to painful. Static and on-demand initialization Technically, I cheat here: this is another puzzle piece in the "wrap up code for reuse": It's a nightmare to get something initialized only when it is needed. The best solution to all other redist problems is throwing everything into headers, this problem says "neeener - you cannot".

诚然，其中许多内容超出了严格的语言范围，但在我看来，整个工具链都需要进行判断和发展。

C++

The inconsistencies in the libraries related to char* and std::string. All C++ libs should take std::strings. Characters are not bytes with respect to iostream. I do a lot of byte-oriented work. Having a "byte" type and a "character" type would significantly make it simpler. That, too, would permit scaling to Unicode somewhat easier. Bit operations should be easy on a value. I should be able to access and set the n'th bit of a value without playing AND/OR dancing. The lack of a standardized interface for GUIs. This is where Microsoft has really been able to position themselves well with C#. A standard interface binding that OS makers provide would go really far for my work.