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?

>>261
Irrelevant to the topic, and the fact that algorithmic complexity doesn't come into play is to the point of my argument although I didn't even bother touching that subject as it is a topic that has a conclusive answer. Are you sure you read the right post, or are do you just have some pre-made answers in case of butthurt that you chug forward regardless of the content? Sorry for educating you so far.

>>262
So saying 2+2=4, and that it is recognized as such by all experts and all hardware at the modern date is implemented as such puts the burden of proof on me, and "BAWWWW ACADEMICS ARE BRAINWASHED!!11 ONE INSTRUCTION CAN DO TWO THINGS MEANS IT WILL BE FASTER EVEN IF THE OTHER PROCESSOR CAN DO A HUNDRED INSTRUCTIONS IN THE SAME TIME" is a credible counterargument worth discussing? Are you sure you aren't a certain brain-dead excrement leftover tripfag samefagging who would be uneducated enough to take this seriously?