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?

>>3
I'll look into Lua, thanks.

>>10,26,47
Pig disgusting! Pop infix syntax everywhere — worse than C. Terrible GC. And as I said of Clojure and Erlang, concurrency is not the next big thing, parallelism is.

>>15,50
Interesting. I'll look into Factor.

>>21
JavaScript does have some good parts, like VB6. But overall it's shit.

>>28
Perl has braindamaged syntax, ``There's more than one way to fuck up'' and it's slow.

>>39
What >>40 said.

>>46
Too verbose and antique approach to multiprocessing.

>>48-49
I don't see the point of modifying lambda expressions at run-time. Is that what you call ``true code = data''?

>>59
Archaic cons-based library

You don't understand Lisp
Could you elaborate? I'm fine with the special casing of two-elements records for linked lists but I don't understand why is the user encouraged to use them for things such as association lists elements or trees.

Writing complex macros is a PitA due to the unlispy quotation syntaxes.

What the fuck
I don't know why I wrote that.