Developers often have various reasons for avoiding certain programming languages, and these reasons can range from technical limitations to personal preferences. Here are some small and big but significant reasons that developers might shy away from using certain programming languages.

1. Strict Indentation Rules

Some developers find strict indentation rules cumbersome and restrictive, especially if they’re accustomed to more flexible formatting styles. Languages like Python enforce strict indentation, which can be off-putting to those who prefer more leniency in code formatting.

Python is a prime example of a language with strict indentation rules. Its syntax relies on indentation to define code blocks, which can be seen as both a strength and a limitation depending on developers’ preferences.

2. Insufficient Support for 64-bit Integers

In applications requiring large numerical computations or handling big data, the lack of robust support for 64-bit integers can be a significant drawback. Developers might avoid languages lacking this support if their projects heavily rely on such data types.

Older versions of JavaScript had limited support for handling 64-bit integers, which could pose challenges for developers working with large numerical data sets or requiring precise arithmetic operations.

3. Poor Accuracy of Mathematical Calculations

For scientific or engineering applications where precision is crucial, languages with poor accuracy in mathematical calculations are unsuitable. Even slight inaccuracies can lead to significant errors, making developers opt for languages with robust numerical computation libraries.

PHP, historically, had issues with the accuracy of certain mathematical calculations due to its floating-point arithmetic implementation. While PHP has improved over time, this issue was a concern for developers working on projects requiring high precision.

4. Strict File and Folder Structures

Some languages impose strict file and folder structures, which can be frustrating for developers who prefer more flexibility in organizing their codebase. Such constraints may hinder productivity and make the development process more cumbersome.

Java is known for its strict adherence to file and folder structures, especially in larger projects following the conventions enforced by build tools like Maven or Gradle. While this can promote consistency, it may also be perceived as overly restrictive by some developers.

5. Strict Object-Oriented Programming Rules

While object-oriented programming (OOP) has its benefits, languages that enforce strict adherence to OOP principles, such as requiring all code to be composed of classes, can be overly restrictive for certain projects or coding styles. Developers may seek languages offering a balance between OOP and procedural paradigms.

Java is also an example of a language that heavily emphasizes object-oriented programming (OOP) principles, often requiring all code to be encapsulated within classes. While OOP has its benefits, this strict enforcement may not suit all developers’ coding styles or project requirements.

6. Very Slow Compilations

Long compilation times can significantly impede the development workflow, especially in large projects where frequent code changes are made. Developers may avoid languages with notoriously slow compilers to maintain productivity and efficiency.

Scala, a language that runs on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), is known for relatively slow compilation times compared to some other JVM languages like Java or Kotlin. This slower compilation can frustrate developers, particularly in larger codebases.

7. Very Slow Runtimes

Languages with inefficient runtime performance can be unsuitable for performance-critical applications or systems with high throughput requirements. Developers may opt for languages with faster runtimes to ensure optimal application performance and responsiveness.

Historically, languages like Ruby or Python have been criticized for their slower runtime performance compared to lower-level languages like C or C++. While advancements have been made in performance optimization (e.g., Just-In-Time compilation in Python), these languages may still be perceived as slower for certain types of applications.

8. Verbose Syntax

Languages with verbose syntax require more lines of code to accomplish simple tasks, which can lead to code that is harder to read and maintain. For example, Java is often criticized for its verbosity compared to more concise languages like Python or Ruby.

Java is often cited as an example of a language with verbose syntax. For simple tasks, Java code tends to be more verbose compared to languages like Python or Ruby, requiring more boilerplate code.

9. Lack of Community Support

Programming languages with small or inactive developer communities may lack resources, libraries, and community-driven support, making it challenging for developers to find solutions to problems or receive assistance when needed.

Languages like COBOL or Fortran, which are considered legacy languages with shrinking developer communities, may suffer from a lack of active support, modern resources, and community engagement.

10. Poor Documentation

Inadequate or poorly maintained documentation can hinder developers’ ability to learn and use a language effectively. Languages with unclear or outdated documentation may frustrate developers trying to understand language features or best practices.

Haskell, while known for its powerful features, has been criticized for having documentation that can be challenging for beginners to navigate. Inconsistent or incomplete documentation can hinder developers’ understanding and adoption of the language.

11. Platform Limitations

Some languages are tightly coupled with specific platforms, limiting their portability and interoperability. For instance, Microsoft’s C# is primarily used in the context of .NET Framework or .NET Core, which may discourage developers who prefer platform-independent solutions.

Swift, Apple’s programming language for iOS and macOS development, is tightly integrated with Apple’s platforms. While it offers excellent support for iOS and macOS development, its use is limited outside of the Apple ecosystem.

12. Unpredictable Behavior

Languages with unpredictable or inconsistent behavior can introduce bugs that are difficult to diagnose and debug. Developers may avoid such languages to mitigate the risk of encountering unexpected behavior in their code.

JavaScript, due to its loose typing system and various browser implementations, can exhibit unpredictable behavior, leading to bugs that are difficult to debug and troubleshoot across different environments.

13. Poor Tooling Support

Lack of robust development tools, such as integrated development environments (IDEs), debuggers, or profilers, can hinder developers’ productivity and make the development process more challenging and error-prone.

Assembly language, while powerful for low-level programming, lacks the robust tooling support available for higher-level languages. Developers may find it challenging to debug and profile assembly code without modern development tools.

14. Limited Adoption

Languages with limited adoption or niche use cases may lack industry recognition and job opportunities for developers proficient in those languages. This can deter developers from investing time and effort into learning or using such languages.

Elixir, a functional programming language built on top of the Erlang virtual machine, has a relatively small adoption compared to mainstream languages like Java or JavaScript. Limited adoption may deter developers from investing in learning Elixir due to fewer job opportunities or community resources.

15. Vendor Lock-in

Languages associated with specific vendors or proprietary technologies may lock developers into those ecosystems, limiting their flexibility and autonomy. Developers may prefer open-source or vendor-neutral languages to avoid dependency on specific vendors.

Microsoft’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) is tightly coupled with Microsoft Office products, creating a vendor lock-in situation where developers are limited to using VBA within the Microsoft ecosystem.

16. Poor Performance for Specific Use Cases

While a language may perform well in general, it may exhibit poor performance for certain use cases or domains. Developers may avoid using such languages for projects with specific performance requirements, opting for alternatives better suited to their needs.

Python, while generally known for its ease of use and readability, may exhibit poor performance for CPU-bound tasks compared to languages like C or C++. Developers may avoid using Python for performance-critical applications where speed is paramount.

17. Lack of Modern Language Features

Languages that lack modern language features, such as type inference, pattern matching, or functional programming constructs, may feel outdated and less expressive compared to contemporary alternatives.

PHP, although widely used for web development, has been criticized for lacking modern language features found in newer languages like Rust or Swift. This can make PHP code feel less expressive and maintainable for certain types of projects.

18. High Learning Curve

Languages with steep learning curves or complex syntax may deter developers, especially beginners, from investing time and effort into mastering them. A high learning curve can hinder adoption and slow down the development process.

Prolog, a logic programming language, is often cited as having a high learning curve due to its non-standard syntax and unique paradigm. Developers may find it challenging to grasp Prolog’s declarative programming style, especially if they are accustomed to imperative or object-oriented languages.

19. Improper support for OOP

Improper support object-oriented programming can be a significant concern for developers, especially in languages where OOP is not the primary paradigm or where the implementation of OOP features is lacking or cumbersome. Here are examples of programming languages that might be disliked due to improper support for OOP:

19.a. While C supports some object-oriented programming concepts through struct and function pointers, it lacks built-in support for features like classes, inheritance, and polymorphism, which are fundamental to OOP. Implementing OOP principles in C often requires manual coding and can be verbose and error-prone.

19.b. Assembly languages are low-level and lack high-level abstractions for OOP concepts. Developers have to manage memory and data structures manually, making it challenging to implement OOP principles effectively.

19.c. Bash, a shell scripting language primarily used for automating tasks in Unix-like operating systems, does not provide native support for OOP. While it’s possible to emulate some OOP concepts using functions and variables, it can be clunky and unintuitive compared to languages designed explicitly for OOP.

19.d. AWK is a domain-specific language commonly used for text processing. While it offers procedural programming features, it lacks built-in support for OOP concepts. Developing complex, maintainable software using OOP principles in AWK can be cumbersome and unconventional.

19.e. Perl is a versatile scripting language known for its powerful text processing capabilities. While it supports some OOP features, such as classes and objects, the syntax for OOP can be verbose and less intuitive compared to languages like Python or Java, making it less appealing for OOP-centric development.

19.f. MATLAB, a popular language for numerical computing and scientific research, supports object-oriented programming through classes and objects. However, its OOP features are often considered less robust and flexible compared to languages specifically designed for OOP, leading some developers to seek alternatives for OOP-intensive projects.

19.g. R is a statistical programming language widely used in data analysis and research. While it supports some OOP features, such as S3 and S4 classes, its OOP capabilities are not as comprehensive or intuitive as those found in languages like Python or Java, which may deter developers looking for robust OOP support.

Languages with improper support for object-oriented programming can pose challenges for developers who rely heavily on OOP principles for software design and development. Developers may prefer languages that provide more comprehensive and intuitive support for OOP, enabling them to write cleaner, more maintainable code.


Overall, while these reasons may seem small individually, they collectively contribute to developers’ decisions regarding language selection. Developers prioritize languages that align with their project requirements, coding preferences, and efficiency considerations to ensure smooth development experiences and successful outcomes. By considering these additional factors, developers can make informed decisions when selecting programming languages for their projects, taking into account various aspects such as syntax, community support, documentation, platform compatibility, tooling, adoption, performance, and learning curve.

These examples above demonstrate how different languages can exhibit the characteristics that developers might find problematic or restrictive, influencing their choice of language for particular projects or coding preferences. Programming languages can exhibit characteristics that may discourage developers from using them, based on factors such as syntax verbosity, community support, documentation quality, platform limitations, behavior predictability, tooling support, adoption, vendor lock-in, performance, feature set, and learning curve.