>>14
I'm not.
Yes, a lot of personal computing will continue to be doable with the current crop of bloated object-oriented languages running on shitty VMs. A lot of these languages are good at scripting and acting as adequate shell alternatives.
But your personal toy project needs don't matter.
All I'm doing is following Moore's Law to its conclusion. As computer hardware slows, software optimization will become more and more important. And having the right languages and tools will be key. The hardware will never be fast enough. Object-oriented languages have no hope for salvation here.
Miniaturization of devices and the desire to drive down power consumption and operation costs will further motivate developers to increase software efficiency.
Strong AI applied to industrial automation will require languages capable of processing lots and lots of data simultaneously. It'll be pretty mainstream in the near future.
>>15
Did you miss the part where I mentioned Clojure/Lisp-like on OpenCL, or a Go-like on OpenCL? OpenCL isn't just a language, it's a low-level platform which distills some things from LLVM (the OpenCL ISA will probably resemble LLVM IR bytecode).
I said C and OpenCL will dominate the low-level languages, just as C has dominated low-level languages these past three decades. It's not going anywhere. At all. We'll still be using C 20 years down the road. Library abstractions solve concurrency, albeit in an unsafe manner.
Higher level languages designed to take advantage of the OpenCL feature set and concurrency models will make it easier for mere mortals to "get shit done."