Too many languages

There are thousands of programming languages.

The purpose of a programming language is to express programs. The
purpose of learning programming languages is to build up a toolbox for
reasoning about and synthesizing programs in any one given language.

There are diminishing returns on learning programming languages, and
time is scarce.

Therefore one must select between programming languages to study.

A good selection of languages has both
+ breadth
  + satisfies a number of real world economic needs.
+ focus
  + exploits similarity between languages and incremental learning.
  + some unifying basis

A good member of a particular selection meets a number of the
following criteria:
+ Satisfies one particular school of thought on programming languages.
+ Significant difference from predecessors
+ Significant influence on successors
+ Economically significant
+ Advanced i.e. no direct, established and proven heir.
+ A good language.
  + Easy to express programs with
  + Easy to read programs expressed with
  + Easy to reason about programms expressed with

No one of these criteria are sufficient or even necessary conditions.

A bad member satisfies the opposite criteria.

>>120
The idea isn't to have hardware accelerated garbage collection. It's to have hardware garbage collection period. No software would have to implement anything with regards to memory allocation, only the hardware manufacturers.

All programs would be able to allocate memory as they wish knowing that it will be safely deallocated when all hardware type tagged references to that memory disappear.

This also points out that hardware GC has to go hand in hand with hardware type tagging. You can't have one without the other.

Again, the idea isn't optimization. I don't give two shits about optimization (in this context). I care about sitting ontop of sane abstractions and not having every second software vendor reimplementing something that is a basic service to be expected from the hardware or at least the operating system.