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.

REBOL

REBOL是我最喜欢的语言之一。我不能说我有一个最喜欢的，尽管Haskell排名也很高。

Its odd syntax scares off many developers before they even give it a try. use [email rules url] [ ; A small DSL that sends email to people about URLs. rules: [ some [ into [ set email email! set url url! (send/subject email url reform [ "Check Out" url ]) ] ] ] ; Global context notify: func [ [catch] dsl [block!] ] [ unless parse dsl rules [ throw make error! "You screwed up somehow." ] ] ] notify [ [ a@b.com http://www.google.com ] [ b@c.com http://www.yahoo.com ] ] Recursive dialects are very easy to validate with PARSE but very difficult to evaluate. (Stacks can be helpful here.) REBOL has very poor integration with many popular technologies, particularly XML. I suspect this is partly arrogance, because the REBOL BLOCK! datatype can do almost everything XML can do. However, the real world has XML in it. No Unicode. Thanks to AltMe, REBOL's user community is very insular. I can understand why they want to use AltMe. It's written in REBOL and shows off its strengths. Unfortunately it also puts them off on their own little island.

即将到来的REBOL 3有望解决许多这些问题，除了最后一个。

Python:

1) line continuation syntax: "...\" works, but "...\ " does not, and that trailing space is generally invisible, without unusual eol-marking by editer. 2) a bare 'raise' is invisible in the stack trace, as the stack trace looks like the previous raised exception. 3) slow 4) poor integration into web-servers (mod_python: dead, mod_wsgi: limited scope of operation). This is complicated by 3], requiring daemonization or some sort of memory-persistance to perform well. 5) overly tolerant of mixed tabs and spaces, allowing changes to control flow to sometimes remain hidden. (maybe fixed in recent versions)

C#

No easy way to check if a type is Numeric It means you are probably stuck using most of the microsoft stack, IIS and MSSQL Instead of being a specific tool for a specific problem, C# tries to be a language for every paradigm. Lack of community. Sure, there are starting to be open-source frameworks and libraries for C#. The same ones that have been available to Java developers for years. Hard to find good help. The internet is littered with poor examples of how to solve problems with C#. This goes back to problem #3.

Lua:

元表是如此令人困惑，直到他们“点击” 缺少像a += 20这样的赋值操作符是一种痛苦 没有集成的面向对象的解决方案意味着每个人和他的狗都使用自己的口味 用于注释(——)的语法排除了加/减前后操作符的可能性 不入侵C端就不可能有任何先发制人的多任务系统

我讨厌c++的五个方面

联系时间。使用分布式构建，我可以在同一时间重新构建我们的整个项目，它需要我们的链接器运行。 没有防止内存操作重新排序的标准方法。使用写组合内存通常需要滥用volatile关键字。防止读重排序(在处理SIMD数学管道时通常是优化的关键)通常是通过在例程中间注入空ASM块来实现的。 多步宏来解决字符串化问题:

#define STR_LINE2(x) #x
#define STR_LINE(x)   STR_LINE2(x)
#define LINE_NUMBER STR_LINE(__LINE__)

做字符串操作通常是很痛苦的。 大量的非标准化printf变体(vsnprintf_s vs _vsnprintf_s)。