Cross Platform Programming

What is the most pragmatically cross platform language that isn't Java*? I need something that have a ton of cross platform libraries. Something that I can compile with very minor trouble on all different desktop OSes.

The most important libraries that I would need are probably db queries through networks.

I only need this to run on x86 variants (probably) but across all types of OSes from Windows CE to Windows 2003 to Windows Xp to RHEL to OSX.

I can program in both imperative and functional styles but I'm admitted a bit rusty in imperative programming.

*I can't use Java because the JVM is blacklisted because of it's history of insecurities.

No language is cross-platform in itself, but I'd say write it in Haxe and compile it to whatever supported platform/language you want (Sepples is included, I think).
Haxe makes good use of existing libraries, and there's a small but dedicated community who share stuff (API bindings and the like).
It's OO but I'm sure that's easy enough to get to grips with.

Use Common Lisp. There's no standard FASL format but there are a lot of implementations. You will need to compile for multiple targets but source code portability is trivial.

Haskell?

You'll just end up using libraries that have a shitload of #ifdef directives. You can do the same with your code.

javascript

>>1
Use python or some other high level interpreted language. If you absolutely need to write something in a compiled language to get closer to the OS or for speed requirements or whatever then do the minimum amount of work necessary using sepples to get stuff to a state where you can go back to using the interpreted language to finish solving the problem.

If you use sepples don't use ifdefs. They make code illegible and brittle. Use templates and policy based design.

If you use sepples don't use ifdefs. They make code illegible and brittle. Use templates and policy based design.
ONE WORD THE FORCED ENTERPRIZATION OF CODE

LISP

any important system has a LISP compiler and Interpreter, but even if you manage to find one that doesn't,  LISP is so small that you could easily implement it on that system whike sitting on the bus ride home

>>9
By your capitalisation of the word “LISP” and qualification of it as small, I'm guessing you're talking about LISP 1.5 or Scheme, which are both way too slow for serious use and lack libraries. Terrible advice!

>>10
LISPs arent slow anymore and there are plenty of libraries.

I think the problem here is that cant produce a good compiler of your own nor libraries and therefore its all horrible