/prog/.lang

So guys. I have a stupid question to ask: if you were going to design a language what would it be like?

I'm curious to know /prog/'s ideas. We argue language features a lot, and feature interplay a little, but we rarely get down to feature holism. (I'm not asking /prog/ in cooperation to design a language, but that might be hilarious.)

I'm asking because for all my opinions and dissatisfaction with the majority of languages I use I'm still stumped as to what I would like to see, ideally. (Obviously the right-tool-for-the-job maxim applies, but even when I pick a specialization I run into problems making up my mind.)

>>2
Dispense with the trolling for a moment and try being insightful.

>>1
It really depends what the language is for, and whether you want it to interface with some existing platform. For example, I'm really fond of Haskell for most "write fucking everything from scratch" projects these days, but if I'm writing, say, a Cocoa or Java shitfest, I'll turn to some form of Lisp.

There is not a good systems language right now. I think there's plenty of room for a new language in that market. I'm talking about the kind of low-level stuff where you absolutely need either C or assembly; stuff that isn't as sensitive to performance as to memory usage or subtle bugs, which means Sepples is an even worse idea than usual. The offerings are really pretty poor here, and people writing this kind of code have to do a lot of work up front that the compiler could handle.