Common Lisp

conditions aren't classes (since classes came later), even though their interface is almost identical some of the names are just weird, e.g., flet / labels (only difference: scope), and defvar / defparameter (only difference: behavior when already defined), or any of the bit-twiddling functions (dpb, ldb, etc.) packages are ... really hard to get right -- every time I think I understand them, they don't do what I want built-in data structures and functions aren't as generic as they could be (e.g., why can't I define my own hash function portably?) multiple namespaces for functions, variables, etc. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but CL made it too complex; Norvig has said he can't tell from the spec but there appear to be at least 7 namespaces)

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.

再给c++投一票…仍然是我最喜欢的语言，有几个亲密的追随者——C和Python。以下是我目前最讨厌的名单，排名不分先后:

Plethora of integer types inherited from C - way too many problems caused by signed vs. unsigned mistakes Copy constructors and assignment operators - why can't the compiler create one from the other automatically? Variable argument madness - va_list just doesn't work with objects and I'm so sick of problems created with sprintf(), snprintf(), vsnprintf(), and all of their relatives. Template implementation is required to be fully visible at compile time - I'm thinking of the lack of "export" implementations or at least usable ones Lack of support for properties - I want to have a read-only member like "a.x" that can be read publicly and only assigned internally. I really hate the "val=obj.getX()" and "obj.setX(val)". I really want properties with access control and a consistent syntax.

我使用Java，我最大的不满是字符串操作的低效率。当你使用+运算符时。说真的，难道编译器不能计算出我添加了多少字符串，然后在后台为我生成StringBuffer的东西吗?

通常，使用+的代码比StringBuffers操作序列更具可读性。

另外，我讨厌本机数组和集合框架之间的冗余。. toarray()的语法极其丑陋。

Ruby:

重要的空白。对于解释器，行尾=语句的结束，除非看起来语句应该继续(或者显式转义换行符)。 慢 在线文档不如Python的好(为了辩护，Python的很棒) 我刚才提到慢了吗?

Python。

虽然前面提到了python处理作用域的奇怪方式，但我觉得最糟糕的结果是:

import random

def myFunction():

    if random.choice(True, False):
        myString = "blah blah blah"

    print myString

也就是说，if块内部的作用域与函数的其余部分相同，这意味着变量声明可以出现在条件分支内部，并且可以在条件分支外部访问。大多数语言要么阻止你这样做，要么至少为你提供某种严格的模式。

此函数有时会成功，但有时会抛出异常。虽然这是一个人为的例子，但这可能会导致一些微妙的问题。