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?

>>273
>"HURRR SUPPOSE 2=3, THEN 2+2=6!!!11 LOOK I AM NOT RETARDED NO MORE, WHERE IS YOUR 4 NOW!1! RELIGION OF SCIENCE!!111 I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR ARGUMENT ALREADY EVEN THOUGH I NEVER DID, AND NEVER COULD UNSURPRISINGLY BECAUSE WHATEVER I CRY DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT CISC INSTRUCTIONS ARE STILL CONVERTED TO RISC IN MODERN PROCESSORS"
Well you being clinically retarded is not up to discussion, you prove it by every sentence you manage to shit out. Notice that you are so incredibly brain dead that you are still talking about imaginary old "published studies" while the cold hard facts I've brought to the table were the implementations by profit-seeking corporations that are bound to the x86 CISC architecture. Sure, all the top level engineers at Intel, everyone working in alternatives in CISC and RISC based devices, along with everyone in academia and anyone knowing mathematics and logic is unaware of your scientific breakthrough that makes CISC magically relevant after 80's, perhaps you should name your theory after yourself "Retard Processing" (well, you actually haven't managed to provide content for it other than spouting baseless numbers that don't relate to reality, but I'm sure even a retard such as yourself has backed your notions despite not telling us, right? right?)...

Ah, also, it's funny that you are talking about "an opponent" of yours in "an argument" - I am merely putting some brainless piece of shit to his place by attempting to grind facts into his vacuous mind, there is nothing to argue here for anyone who knows basic mathematics or logic. You might even be crying "2+2=5" while bleeding out of your anus like this. You should read more instead of crying, you won't learn anything with your level of retardation, but you'll get points for effort.