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?

>>38
Basically you should be able to look at code and know what it does, not poke around with a debugger and static anaylisis to try and find out what the program might do because the code is to unsafe to trust on its own.
Oh lawd the ironing. With native code you can see every single instruction from compiled output, knowing that this copy will not change at all. And you're really delusional. Hardware gets better not to make it easier for weak programmers, but to allow for better software. It's not like everyone is going to buy expensive hardware just so that shitty bloated GCs can run at a maximum. They will buy expensive hardware so that they can run software that delivers in parity with the hardware. For example, I'm not going to buy a new graphics card and use more power just to play a game that has graphics no better than last year. What a fucking waste. Apply the same idea to enterprise servers and we're talking about billions of dollars.

Related: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm