> you couldn't have a clearer example of a strictly worse language... A language that does NOT have as many features and limits more what you can do is NOT a s

> you couldn't have a clearer example of a strictly worse language... A language that does NOT have as many features and limits more what you can do is NOT a strictly worse language. You can never say a language is worse than another, anyway, in general: it's always relative to what usage you have in mind. Your apparent disdain for a language just on the basis of the language features shows that you have a lot to learn about language economics, mentioned in other threads here.