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?

``i used the superior speed of assembly to program a lifetime supply of semen for all my holes！'' -- cudder

Seriously why is this discussion still going on, it's less relevant to programming than which 2hu I'd fuk. At the very least please sage consistently so you stop bumping this crap.

bump

>>282
back to /g/

>>275
It doesn't take any knowledge of graph theory to see that register allocation just ain't that hard. The academics took this huge long detour into graph theory, SSA, etc. before finally beginning to realise that.

>>276
CISC INSTRUCTIONS ARE STILL CONVERTED TO RISC IN MODERN PROCESSORS
That's one way to think of it, but the "RISC inside" is more of a marketing strategy than a description of what really happens, as uops are a lot more elementary than a typical RISC instruction. If you consider uops "RISC", then even the original 8086 would be doing that "conversion"; the only difference being the microsequencers back then were sequential-only, whereas they're more parallel now. In case it wasn't clear from the beginning, we're arguing about RISC vs CISC externally, i.e. instruction sets like MIPS, ARM, etc. vs x86. Whether you consider a processor to be RISC or CISC internally (and you seem to be saying that they're all RISC, fair enough) isn't the point.

imaginary old "published studies"
I'm talking about the original papers in the 80s and early 90s. Possibly the only thing "imaginary" was you at that time.

You might even be crying "2+2=5"
Are you going to argue against maths now? Do I have to teach you basic arithmetic first?

baseless numbers that don't relate to reality
Then how about YOU try to come up with a counterexample, or at the very least point out exactly what you have issue with? If you can't do that, then it means you do not even have sufficient familiarity with your side to defend it!

Your repeated incessant personal attacks only show that you cannot come up with any better argument. You have lost.

(This is not unlike arguing with a religious fundamentalist about evolution. Seemingly educated, mild-mannered people quickly turn into surprisingly bad-tempered screaming insult-flinging children.)

>>279
Or at least provide some nice convincing numbers to inspect.

I'll conclude this with a few words from our sponsorssupporters:

http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/Whyx86WonVsRISC
Memory access speed was not seen as a big concern back in 1992, but it has become an increasingly important one since then and this favours architectures with compact instruction encodings (even if this results in them being far from regular and easy to decode).
http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/Whyx86WonVsRISCII
What people really cared about in the early 1990s was RISC ISAs, and (1992 style) RISC ISAs unambiguously lost. CPUs implementing the x86 ISA were pushed to performance and price levels that could not be matched by CPUs implementing RISC ISAs and as a result RISC ISAs have basically died out.
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302.2/1909.html
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302.2/1950.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/rynn/421/Articles/RISCy%20Business.pdf

x86 is crap. If it ain't x86, it's worse than crap.

>>285
It's "crap" that beats everything else.

See the http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1317072394/126- too.

>>286
Congratulations for your Intel GET. Also, did you read my whole post? I explicitly said that the other ISA were worse.

>>285-287
in during intel shills
Shalom!

>>288
implying

>>285-288
Jew86 ist Judenscheisse. Congratulations on your Intel shit.

>>286
Uh huh. Then why is virtually every mobile OS now targeting ARM?

>>291
ARM has low transistor count and power consumption, and is easily embedded as an IP core into an SoC. Memory bandwidth doesn't matter as much (they run the core at a low enough speed, for power consumption reasons.) These characteristics are more suited to a mobile application.

>>292
Care to qualify your overly broad statement about x86 "beating" everything else then?

>>293
Meh not like mobile shit matters when they do everything in complete slow as fuck bloated shit like java and obj-c.

OOP because of IntelliSense!