>>23
The impossible namespacing and the forced classes are there to make it look ``robust'' and ``mature'', and mostly because C#, Java, .NET and the JVM were born when OOP was all the rage.
Java and C#, besides the namespace hell and the long identifiers everywhere, are not the only who suffer from shitCase and theForcedShiftingOfCharacters: Ruby, Python (?), Haskell and C++ (mostly) follow this convention too, C uses lowercase_with_underscores that looks just as bad, it's longer, and still requires shifts.
Also, any reason to prefix everything with (com|org|net|*).mysite.[...]?
To be honest, I actually like function overloading, despite the bad habits it can breed, because it can make it so easy to extend operators. I'd prefer a language that permits both overloading and optional parameters, if we're talking purely about classical imperative tongues.
Haskell, IMO, does the right thing here, with type classes. They really help to not get into full retardation and overload
add(int,string) and to organize polymorphic procedures better.