Any decent modern general-purpose languages?

Assembly: Unportable. No standardised syntax.
Classical Visual Basic: Some good parts. Shit overall.
C: Shitty standard library. Deficient type system. Can't into Unicode. ``Unportable assembly.''
D and C++: Obfuscated boilerplate languages.
Java and C#: Forced OOP.
Common Lisp: Archaic cons-based library. Writing complex macros is a PitA due to the unlispy quotation syntaxes.
Scheme: CL without namespaces.
Clojure and Erlang: Concurrency is unneeded outside of a few very specific applications. Parallelism is where it's at.
OCaml: Great language, only one, deficient, implementation.
Haskell: Academic sex toy.
Forth: Reinventing the wheel over and over.
Ruby: Implicit declarations. Slow as fuck.
Python: Implicit declarations. FioC.
Perl: Brain damage.
PHP: Pretty much shit.
JavaScript: "" == false

It's impossible to list them all but, please, what decent modern general-purpose languages exist?

>>223
They're not. For example, the accumulator is preferred for many instructions.
There hasn't been a real "accumulator" in Intel CPUs since the Pentium Pro. x86's non-uniform accumulator architecture was obsolete before it was designed (compare PDP-11, 68K, VAX and every RISC). It helped make the 8086 cheaper than 68K back in 1978 when the accumulator was attached to the ALU but now it just makes things harder for programmers and hardware designers. Learn an assembly language other than x86, and wonder why anyone would willingly use Intel crap (especially the ugly 32-bit and 64-bit hacks) if IBM didn't choose it for the original PC (for its cheap price, not for technical merit) and the Wintel monopoly didn't shove it down OEMs' throats.

>>228
It's a little sad to see all this research being spent on these traditional directions, and not gaining much, when we could've had much better compilers back then, if they had chosen to think about these things "bottom-up".
Or if IBM had chosen a CPU with a uniform register set for their PC.