C++

模板的语法 钻石传承问题 现代语言所拥有的标准库过多/缺乏(尽管boost也很接近)。 iostream IOStreams周围使用的语法

Python

空格是有意义的(有时) 强调关键词 有限的线程支持(至少目前) 用self代替this 空格是有意义的(有时)

PHP

几乎每个标准函数都在全局作用域中 不一致的函数参数顺序 不一致的函数命名 不区分大小写的函数 脚本的行为可能会因php.ini文件的不同而有所不同 能够使用未定义的变量 在某些情况下，必须将结果赋值给变量，然后才能在函数中使用它

更主观地说:

动态类型

Oracle SQL

DUAL表。 不能通过别名分组。 我永远记不住分析函数的语法，所以我忘记/懒得使用它们。 缺少组合的LIKE和IN条件运算符。(不过，在10g之后，有一个REGEX_LIKE操作符可以做到这一点。) 笨拙的连接语法。

SQL并不是我最喜欢的语言，但它是我每天使用的三大语言之一。可能还有更多的项目，但这些是我脑海中最重要的。

我有一大堆SQL*PLUS的问题。我写了一个Perl的替代品，从命令行做我想做的，我使用sql。Emacs中的el用于交互式SQL会话。这些工具可以帮助我解决SQL*PLUS问题。

说到这里:

Perl

"Only perl can parse Perl." (But this is mostly an issue in syntax highlighting, which I don't prefer to use much anymore for any language.) I'm sometimes surprised by "the simple (but occasionally surprising) rule...: It looks like a function, therefore it is function, and precedence doesn't matter." (From perlfunc(1)) Dereferencing complex data structures can be confusing at times. I can't decide if this is a true flaw in Perl or just a consequence of having really powerful data structure facilities. Either way, I can normally get it right by taking a few minutes to think about what I'm doing. No option to cause system calls to raise their errors like the DBI module. (Thanks to brian d foy, I now know the autodie module on CPAN does this, but I'd like it built-in.) Warnings and strictures not enabled by default in scripts. (The -e option would turn them off for command line use.)

同样，肯定还有更多的事情，但这些是我最近注意到的问题。我还要加上=over and =back和古怪的L<…>语法在POD中，但也许那应该是一个单独的列表。

现在来看看三连冠:

康壳牌

Sourcing a file with arguments replaces the values of the parent script's arguments. (Executing . file arg1 puts arg1 in $1.) ksh is not an ideal interactive shell and defaults to vi key-bindings, rather than emacs. (My solution is to use bash for interactive shells.) Common utilities (such as grep) are implemented differently across different platforms thereby preventing perfect portability. Some useful commands need to be installed on some platforms and are part of the OS core on others. The syntax for conditionals is overly heavy. (if [ ... ]; then ... fi) Although it is Turing Complete, you are eventually going to want to move up to a more expressive language like Perl.

第4个问题的一个解决方案是习惯短路评估:

[ ... ] && ...

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:)

Python

错误/异常在调试时是模糊的 我工作时不用 在类中使用__init__， __repr__， __str__等 不能简单地编译可执行文件(.exe或其他) 还有一件事我还没试过，但肯定会让我心烦

对于所有的c语言程序员来说，self对我来说更有意义，因为对象引用的是它的self

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。