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.

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。

Python:

Global Interpreter Lock - Dealing with this complicates parallel processing. Lambdas functions are a bit clunky. No built-in ordered-dictionary type. Depending on how Python is compiled, it can use either UCS-2 vs UCS-4 for the internal Unicode encoding, many string operators and iterators may have unexpected results for multi-byte characters that exceed the default width. String slicing and iteration depend on the bit width rather than checking and counting characters. (Most other programming languages do similar things as well and have similarly odd behavior with these characters.) There are inconsistencies surrounding GUI frameworks for Python.

我有一本书探讨了SNOBOL中的各种项目。第一章探讨了SNOBOL编程和语言的历史和文化，并花了一些时间论证一个优秀的程序员喜欢一种语言不是因为它的缺陷，而是尽管有缺陷。

我最喜欢的语言是Icon/Unicon。但还是有一些事情让我很恼火:

它不是很出名，也不是很受欢迎。 与PHP、Perl、Java等相比，它的库要小得多。数据库访问是通过ODBC完成的，这实际上非常烦人。 对于所有其他出色的列表处理，我想念PHP内置的explosion()和implode()。 它没有表常数。列表，是的，表格，不是。 它是一种编译(实际翻译)语言。

Common Lisp:

关键词往往太啰嗦。 库支持是可怜的。 在希望更严格地处理内存的操作系统中不能很好地工作。 没有与操作系统交互的良好工具。 “循环”功能没有很好地定义，当然看起来也不像Lispy。

Python

No statements in lambdas. GRRRR foo( a for b in c if d ) feels wrong, it surprises me every time I get away with it. Shouldin't it be foo( (a for b in c if d) )? Can i have a dict comprehension? map and filter operators have special syntax in list comprehensions, how about something for reduce? or sort? Just by having a yield statement in it, a function is magically transformed into a generator, and its interface changes completely. Also, that generator cannot do any work before the first next(). at least, not without using a function that returns a generator.

JavaScript

No brief syntax for making modular code libraries. You have to call a function that returns a dictionary of public methods. And you have to edit that in (at least) two places every time you alter the interface of your module. Creating closures involves returning it from a function that returns a function from ('sup dog) yo' function. Clutter! for each ( foo ) syntax and behavior feels like an afterthought. Knowing when your code will actually run (and in what order) is more of a dark-art. The only way to get it right for sure is put everything (yes, that too) in one big file. and even then you still need to wait for a document.onload Am i missing something? is there no trivial way to get json serialized values without building them by hand? (yes jQuery can do this, sort of).