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)

方案:

缺乏用户/社区小

Haskell

Sometimes the type system feels backwards. What if I don't want the compiler to infer types for my variables? What if I want the opposite, where it does constraint checking on said variables? For example, instead of inferring the type of the elements of a list, it instead makes sure that they all belong to a particular typeclass. This is a subtle but huge difference that makes it difficult for me to program UIs. It can be done, but it takes more effort than it does in some other languages. Haskell rocks for the non-UI parts, but the UI I leave to an untyped language. Allowing the construction of infinite values leads to some really frustrating errors sometimes. NoMonomorphismRestriction. Bytestring handling bites me in the ass sometimes and you don't know it until your program crashes because you mixed them up improperly. Something is wrong here, when we are losing type information that should have prevented this. Typeclasses should be automatically derived for trivial cases, like witness types, but there's a strong potential for abuse there.

C#

1)缺乏为值类型编写泛型的实际能力。例如，任何白痴(好吧，大多数白痴)都可以编写一个例程，用c++计算int, float, double等列表的标准偏差，它写起来很简单，易于阅读，并作为快速的非泛型代码执行。我认为，如果你能用c#写一些东西，接近于达到这三个中的任何一个，而在其他两个上又不荒谬，你就是一个真正伟大的程序员。

2)协方差和反方差，尽管这被添加到4。

3)非常糟糕的LINQ文档(好吧，并不是语言的一部分)。

4)尝试使用foreach/迭代器，当我每次都想做同样的事情，除了上次略有不同(如连接一串字符串与逗号之间的单词和最后两个)。如果我用一个IEnumerable来写它，它很难写和读，而用一个for (int I =0 I <…)它并没有好到哪里去，而且效率更低。

5)我知道我会收到抱怨，但是缺少受控的例外。这并不需要像在java中那样实现(框架开发人员确实提出了一些很好的观点，为什么他们没有这样做)，但我很乐意看到编译器警告不喜欢受控异常的用户可以关闭。

Objective Caml

Non-concurrent garbage collector. I can write multi-threaded programs all day long, but they're only ever going to get one of my eight cores at a time. This makes me sad. No type classes (or their moral equivalent). There's Furuse-san's GCaml, but it's A) not quite as good as type classes, and B) not in the INRIA distribution. Badly in need of a Cocoa bridge. Seriously. If I wrote more code with actual interfaces to DNA-based life forms, then I'd probably break down and write the damned thing myself. Why hasn't anybody else done this yet? Functors are abominable. Seriously, modules ought to be first-class values. There should be only one kind of function. Read Montagu and Rémy before you flame me for this. Should use LLVM for its back-end. Who do I have to murder to get OCaml to compile for my stupid little ARM6 core?

是的，我有一些问题。我仍然非常喜欢这门语言。这太棒了。

C#

Cannot create a reference (var &t = struct) No local scope destructors (IDispose comes close but its not the same) ToString, i almost dislike that every object has it but it turns out i dislike everything using it like string.format does. I rather have things that accepts a certain type (like ints, floats, text, chars only). So instead of passing in any object i need to pass in something with a implicit typecast or interface. I ended up writing something like this to safely escape text for html which worked great. Cannot use a virtual typecast (blah)obj; does not work if obj does not inherit/has an interface of blah. Simple workaround is to supply an interface with a convert function. Has no local creation. Instead of writing var o = new Item(); i would like to write (something like) Item o() (with an automatic dispose if it has one).