Neat language in all in one package

I am looking for a tool language with the following features:

Supports both compiled and interpreted code
Documentation provided within the IDE.
Integrated support to access Graphics and Sound from the OS, either GNU/Linux or Windows.
easy code re-usage without OOP.

things considered so far but didn't like:
factor
processing
various python implementations

QBASIC

http://golang.org/

If you like C/UNIX/Plan 9, it was designed and developed by some of the same people. Though it is a compiled language, it's BITCHIN' FAST and you can use the website's live demo as a sort of `interpreter'.

Documentation provided within the IDE.

If you can make compromises on some of the features: Squeak, Emacs, Lua, Chicken Scheme.

C.  Not joking.

Supports both compiled and interpreted code
It's compiled, but there are plenty of script processing engines written for it.  For bonus points, write your own.  Or, if when you say "interpreted," you just mean that you want things like reflection, then just turn on RTTI.  If by "interpreted," you mean GC, then get a GC library for C.

Documentation provided within the IDE.
There is no language that is better documented than C.  Every modern text editor will have tags, syntax highlighting, and standard library documentation built in for C.

Integrated support to access Graphics and Sound from the OS, either GNU/Linux or Windows.
Win32 is written in C.

easy code re-usage without OOP.
That's exactly what C is.

Brace for shitstorm even though everyone knows this is the right answer

>>6
Yes, I know that some of Win32 is written in Pascal.  Fuck off.  What I mean is that it has a C interface -- it's built to be used from C.  And so are all the modern, popular windowing APIs.

C is great and fits >>1's needs.
If by "interpreted," you mean GC, then get a GC library for C.
Common Lisp is a much better idea than C with GC, IMHO. Also, GC is shit.

>>1
didn't like
various python implementations
fuck you. i hope you never get a programming job

>>8
kill yourself faggot.

Chicken. Interpreter works out of box, you need to use mingw or something to compile.

For multimedia, there's some support with the eggs (extra libraries). If not, you can always in-line C so you can just do SDL. Also Chicken compiles to C first.

>code reuse
Prepare your lambdas, macros, and defines. Have you read your SICP today?

>>11
Stop suggesting your shitty sea of parentheses as a valid solution to a usable programming language. The solution doesn't exist yet, and that's final.

...I think you could make a compiled C program act (sort-of) like it was being interpreted(?)... possibly by recompiling during run-time?


#1 Modify the source (possibly using the program!)
#2 Save whatever global variables / program state /etc

#3 system("Recompile and Execute");   
#4 load up whatever...

#5 escape programmatic layers on exit? (most likely?)

>>#5 could cause a few issues memory-wise? // maybe use like a top level (virtual?)interpret program with a fixed source(?) and enter into / out of actual program each recompile

Save progA(>progB(>progC(...))) depth/memory recursion (all programs are stored in memory?!)

but, VintA(>progA>return) VintA(>progB>return) ... is only ever one ply deep

>>6
C.  Not joking.
My first thought too. I saw the in-IDE docs requirement and thought "IDE? But vim doesn't document other languages." Not using vim is almost as bad as actually using emacs.

Then I found this: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=489

(Oh and look, speaking of emacs, it does info pages too.)

So yeah, C. Or Perl.

       The full documentation for sed is maintained as a Texinfo manual.  If the info and sed programs are properly installed at your site, the command

              info sed

       should give you access to the complete manual.