Python:

我仍然是python的一般用户，所以我的抱怨可能只是知识的锁或误用。欢迎提出意见。我很喜欢这门语言。

Poor thread support and GIL. If you'd like to take use of multicore platform, most of the python programmers would probably recommend multiprocessing or some sort, don't use threading. It wouldn't give you the performance you are expecting. property only for instance variable. _class_var = property(classmethod(some_method)) just wouldn't work. How can I get a property wrapped class variable? no access control. All access controls are syntax mangling. Like private is __private, protect is _protected, etc... And hope that everyone programs python follows the naming convention. Come on, we can do better than that. I agree the python philosophy of being simple and clear syntax but some simple and clear syntax not being supported seems lock of good judgement, in my opinion. Such as, a++, ++a, a-- and --a, self-de/increment, what's wrong with those? foo = (a > b ? a : b) unary operation, what's wrong with those? (I know py2.6 has something similar introduced, but given the massive support of almost every other language for those simple syntax, why reinventing the wheel? why not just follow the best practice? Shouldn't a good thing just keep in its good "form"?) Program to interface. Python has no interface or abstract class concept (py3k has something called abc), everything is concrete. Providing an "interface" or "abstract" keyword to build class skeleton and guard class inheritance and extension wouldn't be a bad idea I think. It helps on top-down design. Currently, I just have to fill the each of methods with NotImplementedError, quite a tedious job. I have to add this. version less than 3.x has str and unicode types. This is a true nightmare. It makes ascii and non-ascii/unicode mixing most likely to fail (bad, bad)

我看到人们抱怨速度。我不明白。它是一种解释语言，代码直到运行时才编译成机器代码，这就是它的本质。你不能比较解释语言和编译语言的速度。据我所知，在解释/脚本语言中，python并不慢。

c#(好吧，我猜一部分是VisualStudio IDE):

No covariance (yet), like Class<D> cannot be used in place of Class<B> even though type D derives from type B. Graphic designers don't support generic based inheritance (or inheritance from abstract classes), even though the inheritance itself works just fine if you work around the designer problems by adding extra inheritance levels just so designers always see concrete non-generic variants of your code. No constructor inheritance No constructors in where clauses of generic type parameters VisualStudio seems to have a tendency to mysteriously check out files (like project files and/or unit test definitions) when opening a solution, even though the files do not seem to actually get altered.

如果你明天再问我，可能会有不同的名单。即使协方差和设计师的麻烦将在我的前5名，直到他们被解决(随着方差添加到c# 4.0，这似乎已经发生了至少一个…)

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:)

Ruby有许多与速度相关的缺陷，但我并不讨厌它们。它也有社区传福音过度的缺陷，但这并没有真正困扰我。以下是我最讨厌的:

Closures (blocks) have 4 different creation syntaxes, and none of them are optimal. The elegant syntax is incomplete and ambiguous with hashes, and the full syntax is ugly. The community tends to be against real documentation, favoring ‘read the code’. I find this childish and lazy. Metaprogramming abuse, particularly in libraries, makes bugs a nightmare to track down. On a related note, pervasive metaprogramming makes a comprehensive IDE difficult, if not impossible, to make. The way block passing to functions is done is silly. There is no reason blocks should be passed outside the parameter list, or have odd special syntax to access (yield). I am of the opinion that blocks should have been given a less ambiguous syntax (or hashes could have used different delimiters; perhaps <> rather than {}), and passing as parameters to methods should have been just like all other parameters. object.method(1, {|a| a.bar}, "blah") These oddities, like the block must be the last parameter passed and passing more than one block is different with longer syntax, really annoy me.

TCL

这是我最喜欢的语言，几乎可以做任何事情。多年来，它已经(慢慢地，非常缓慢地)演变为解决大多数让我烦恼的事情。而且这门语言非常灵活，很容易实现语法来覆盖那些仍然困扰我的东西。但是语言中有一些东西是不能轻易改变的，只是打破了它的禅意:

Arrays (of the associative kind, what Perl calls hash) don't have proper value semantics. This makes them awkward to pass to and return from functions. Also, this means that they can't be nested. For this reason dicts (dictionaries) were invented but too late, the nice array access syntax: $array($foo) is now forever taken by stupid arrays for backwards compatibility. We're now stuck with: dict get $dict $foo which is much more verbose and to me feels less readable. No real closures. Though it can be emulated somewhat by globals or namespaces but that defeats the reason for closures in the first place. Although, I can't really see for now how closures can be implemented in a pure value semantics system. Teacup is hard to use and is not at all intuitive compared to all other repository tool out there. This is more ActiveState's fault than tcl-core and doesn't really break tcl's Zen when coding but it is still very annoying.

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