> Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints Hm? show me the 'unnecessary and random constraints' in loo

> Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints Hm? show me the 'unnecessary and random constraints' in looping. It was fundamental to the semantics that looping wasn't simple formally IIRC > he same reason of what exactly? It's literally there in the preceding sentence. > At what point Oberon code becomes verified? It didn't (AFAIK), hence my "possibly not a good choice". But as you don't know history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) which "is descended from the Pascal programming language". IIRC the london underground train controller software was done with euclid. Please note the wide range of restrictions in the language - all for simplicity, from which reliability must in part depend. > I realise that you haven't left Wirth's lab for the past 30 years, don't be insulting > but there are hundreds of programming languages. Go ahead, you'll learn a lot. Like: scala? And C#? VB.net, VBScripting, a little bash, pascal, modula2, delphi, javascript, a flex/bison & antlr, python, sql, prolog (edit: C & C++) - these are all langs I've used commercially. If you want langs I've played with the list includes dylan, haskell, erlang, modula3 and others I can't think of now. Like I said, If you think you can do better then go ahead. Edit: what your angry reaction is concealing from you is I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but you can't see it and won't learn from it.