How about five things I hate about "Things I hate about some language" lists? :D

5- Painting an orange red doesn't make it an apple.

When a language is designed, the designers typically have in mind what it's useful for. Using it for something completely different can work, but complaining when it doesn't is just dumb. Take Python. I'm sure either someone has or someone will some day make a utility to create exe's from Python code. Why on God's earth would you want to do that? It would be neat—don't get me wrong—but it has no use. So stop complaining about it!

A well-designed project would likely contain code from multiple languages. That's not to say you cannot complete a project with only one language. Some projects may be well within the abilities of whatever language you are using.

4- Are you standing on wooden legs?

The platform can be a large influence of what the language can do. With nowadays garbage collectors, or well even pascals early attempt at "garbage collection", can aid in memory fade (maybe malloc more ram??). Computers are faster and so of course, we expect more out of our languages. And quite frankly, we probably should. However, there is a huge price to pay for the convenience of the compiler to create hash tables or strings or a variety of other concepts. These things may not be inherit to the platform of which they are used. To say they are easy to include to a language just tells me you may not have a leg to stand on.

3- Who's fault is it really?

Bugs. You know. I love bugs. Why do I love bugs. Because it means I get to keep my job. Without bugs, there would be many closed pizza shops. However, users hate bugs. But here is a little splash of cold water. Every bug is the programmers fault. Not the language's. A language with such a strict syntax that would significantly reduce how many bugs were possible to generated would be a completely useless language. It's abilities could probably be counted on one hand. You want flexibility or power? You've got bugs. Why? Because you're not perfect, and you make mistakes. Take a really identifiable example in C:

int a[10]; for (int idx = 0; idx < 15; idx++) a[idx] = 10;

We all know what that's going to do. However, what maybe some of us don't realize is.. that functionality can be very beneficial. Depending on what you are doing. Buffer overruns are the cost of that functionality. That code above. If I actually released that to the public. That's again.. say it with me.. "My fault". Not C's for allowing me to do it.

2- Shouldn't we put that in the recycle bin?

It's very easy to point at a feature in a language we don't understand because we don't use it often and call it stupid. Complain that it's there etc. Goto's always entertain me. People always complain about goto's being in a language. Yet I bet your last program included a type of goto. If you have ever used a break or a continue, you've used a goto. That's what it is. Granted, it's a "safe" goto, but it is what it is. Goto's have their uses. Whether "implicit" gotos like continue or break are used or explicit gotos (using the actual keyword "goto" for whatever language). Not that language developers are flawless, but typically... if functionality has existed since the dawn of time (for that language). Likely that aspect is a defining quality of that language. Meaning.. it's being used and likely is not hanging around because of backwards compatibility. It's being used today. As in 5 minutes ago. And used properly. Well.. arguably someone is using it improperly as well, but that relates to #3 on my list.

1. - Everything is an object.

Ok.. this one is really a subset of #2. But this is by far the most annoying complaint I see in hate lists. Not everything is an object. There are a great many of concepts that do not belong or need to be objects. Putting things where they don't belong is just ugly and can decrease efficiency of a program. Sure. Maybe not much depending on the language. This also relates to #5. This means... yes. Global are ok. Functions as apposed to static methods are ok. Combining OO programming with global functions is ok. Now.. that doesn't mean we should all go out and "free" our code from it's object models either. When designing a section of code or a whole project, what happens behind the scenes should be considered when putting it together. Not only where that concept lives and many other factors. Why wrap global functions within classes or name space concepts if it serves no purpose? Take static member variables. That greatly amuses me because.. well..Depending on the language and implementation of course, but generally speaking, you just declared a global. Yes, there are some reasons to wrap these non-OO concepts in OO wrappers. One of course being self documenting code. That can make sense. So.. like I say. Don't go out and "free" your code. But any good modern language will have a global concept outside of it's OO modeling. Yes I'm specifically meaning to point out that an OO programming language without a global concept most likely has a serious design flaw. Again though.. depends on the intention and design of the language so I'm not attempting to pick on any specific language and there are far too many to analyze right here. Anywho, Consider where the code should live and be the most effective. Adding a bunch of flare to something which doesn't add functionality or support just wears down the keyboard faster. It doesn't do anybody any good. Well.. unless you like brownie points from the person who probably incorrectly taught you that everything is an object.

In short, programming isn't just mindlessly tapping on the keyboard. There are a lot of design considerations to any project. I know it's cliche, but you have to look at it from every angle. Even with nowadays type-safe languages. You don't just chuck code out and expect it to work well. Sure.. it may work, but it may not be the right way to go about it. Overall, pick the language and format that is best suited for the specific job AND the environment. But no language takes away the thought behind it. If you're not thinking.. you're just typing.