Javascript;

the dynamic binding of "this" is very confusing and dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. a function declaration requires the keyword "function". It's not the typing I object to, it's the reading it when I want to do something slightly clever. Hrm now I think of it maybe that's a plus. Discourages me from doing clever things. As a result of number 2, it's often less code (in terms of characters) to just copy/paste a code segment than to declare it as a function, if it's a fairly short idiom. This unfortunately promotes bad practice, especially in my own code. Javascript makes motions at being a functional language by having first class functions and closures, but there's no way to verify referential transparency in a function, at either runtime or compile time. Without this, some architectures become either risky or bulky. Its fantastically bad reputation, and thus my inability to say "I program in javascript" to anyone without being laughed at.

Haskell:

惰性计算导致空间泄漏。 数字层次结构不是根据数学抽象构造的。 严格的单元IO会使调试更加困难。 大型实现处理I/O的方式似乎与标准不太兼容。(特别是，输出字符只输出低8位——然后构建代码，使用这个假设来执行二进制I/O。我吐!) ($)运算符的结合性可以被改变以使某些表达式更漂亮。

大多数问题都不会上升到讨厌的程度，有些人试图解决或为每一个问题构建可靠的变通办法。

编辑:关于第5点有些困惑。特别是有些人似乎认为我指的是论证的顺序，但我不是。我不解释我的意思，我只想让人们去下面的链接http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ChangeDollarAssociativity，它很好地表达了我的意思。

SAS

从不有自己的想法(一切都是借来的)。 贪婪于庞大的数据集。 使用Java，但从未学习过什么是对象。 窃取Perl，但将其隐藏在其数据步骤中。 统计学家总是撒谎!

很多人认为Java很慢，但我同意一定程度的使用。

Java是戏剧性的。他们为你想做的一件事提供了很多课程。但是你知道灵活性属性XD。

Java一开始很难，但总是很有趣。

当你写一个简单的代码打印“Hello,World!”请不要使用java !XD我相信我是有道理的。

Java是一种混合，所以不要说它是纯粹的面向对象语言。

还有很多，但我只局限于5个XD。谢谢!

C#

5. 空合并运算符

的? ?运算符允许你写:

x = y ?? z;

而不是:

x = (y == null) ? y : z;

我喜欢这个运算符，但我想要另一个:

x = y ??? y.foo() : z.foo();

而不是

x = (y == null) ? y.foo() : z.foo();

我一直在使用这种东西，而且我发现输入== null部分很烦人。

4. 平等应该有更好的支持

我必须启动每个Equals(object obj)方法: MyClass other = obj作为MyClass; If (other == null)返回false;

你只需要写:

public override bool Equals(MyClass other) {...}

语言应该注意提供Equals(object obj)方法。 注意:other必须保证不为空。

3.不能使用不同类型的三元运算符

这不能编译，我认为它应该编译!

string foo = "hello";
int bar = 4;
object baz = foo == null ? foo : bar;

2. 缺少命名空间private

我喜欢内部保护，但我希望有一种保护只允许从同一名称空间内进行访问。这样可以更好地控制大型类库的访问。

1. 没有多重继承

我实际上只对接口的默认实现使用实现(类)继承，但很多时候我想这样做。

下面是关于Perl 5的更多内容，来自创建了大量Perl模块，特别是在Moose上工作过的人的观点。

The horrible brokenness that is overloading and tied variables. Both of these features are a failed attempt to allow transparent extension to the built-in types. They both fail in various ways, and require module authors like myself to either implement horrible hacks to support them, or to say "never pass an overloaded object to the foo() method". Neither alternative is really acceptable. Lack of proper hooks into the compilation process and the meta-model. Moose in general, and role usage in particular, could be made much safer if the Perl core allowed us to affect the compilation process via a sane API that allowed us to hook into the meta-model (packages, classes, etc.) Lack of named parameters built into the language. Instead, everyone reinvents this. It's annoying. Similarly, lack of optional types. I don't want a static language, but the ability to specify types and constraints, particularly on function/method parameters, would be great. Perl 6 gets this right. Types are optional, but very rich, and there's no fundamental difference between built-in and user-defined types. The backwards compatibility police. This is more of a cultural issue. A number of the above issues can never really be fixed, since Perl 5 has a very strong commitment to backwards compatibility. So even if something were to be added that effectively replaced the current ball of shit that is tie and overloading, those features will never be removed. Of course, backwards compatibility is also one of Perl 5's greatest strengths. Bonus hate: Perl's built-in exception mechanism is a joke. The fact that exceptions may be a string or object makes for an eternity of fiddly exception-catching code, and the lack of a catch in the language syntax is the wart on the wart.