Best assgoblin imperative language

Hey thundercunts, I was just fucking wondering, what in fuck's name is the best shitty imperative asshole language that doesn't have OO facial/eyeball rape, apart from C? C is the fucking shit, it's fucking orgasmic, but if you had to get your cuntjuice from another language, what the fuck would it be, you glorious sons of bitches?

NO EXCEPTIONS

I'd program in CL in an imperative style, not using CLOS.

I'd program in Haskell in an imperative style, only using monads.

I'd program in java using all it has to offer because I value my time and posible employment opportunies that come if using it productively.

I'd program in C in an imperative style, using shit, orgasm and cuntjuice.

If there isn't a Tourette esolanguage, there should be.

>>3
It's not like CLOS even means you have to use the so called `OO design methodology', or that you have to define classes ( which are just glorified structures with multiple inheritance ), CLOS is mainly about generic methods (with multiple dispatch), so in simple terms, you can write specialized functions on all kinds of data types, which have the same name, and when you call that function, CLOS would simply call the right function for you. There's at least a couple generic functions implemented that way in CL, so you're still using CLOS, even without knowing, but of course you could implement all of CLOS functionality only using normal functions and macros (check AMOP or ACL for examples), and someone can implement the popular OO(message passing) model, in like 1 page of code in CL, using only normal functions and macros.

In a more general sense, CL could be considered OO (not in the Java/Sepples sense) as each object has its own identity and can be operated on freely, take a look at symbols (with or without plists) for example.

P.S.: I incorrectly used to avoid CLOS because of misconceptions related to what's considered OO these days, but it was a mistake, as CLOS isn't nearly what they call OO in Java or Sepples( but if you really want that, it can implement such kinds of OO, however that is backwards and shouldn't really be done), instead CLOS is a more generic way to write extensible code. If you find yourself typecase'ing around too much, or funcall'ing object properties, you should probably use CLOS.

>>8
WRONG, Java and C++ aren't OO. CL *IS*

>>9
C++ isn't OO
What.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepples

>>10

>>8 is just being rebelious

>>11
In what way? I merely stated that CLOS OO is a very different kind of OO than Java/Sepples OO, and that someone shouldn't avoid it because of what he would expect from Java/Sepples.

CLOS is still a lot like Java, because not everything is an object

>>13
You better be trolling.
Everything has a class, and can be obtained through class-of http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_clas_1.htm#class-of
And you can specialize a generic method on any class, thus anything.

Python.  OO is optional so you can STAY THE FUCK AWAY from it

Everything is an object in CLOS, but you can implement CLOS in plain CL without CLOS. (with one minor exception related to the functional slot, but this does not impede any functionality from working), so if you don't want to use CLOS, you don't have to use it at all, and at the same time, you can implement CLOS ( where everything has a class ) in plain CL w/o CLOS.

The point I'm trying to make is that the language is powerful enough to allow implementing a full object system in it which directly integrates with the language, and gives the illusion that it was always there, which simply shows how well can you define DSL's which integrate with the language in CL.

>>15
Except when rapists write a library that forces you to interface with their OBJECT ORIENTED MALE PREGNANCY

I don't blame >>1 for wanting to stay the fuck away from OOP, but really, there's no excuse to not just accept C as your lord and savior and write only in C for the rest of your natural life. Why even bother asking about other languages?