>You can try to unify them but then you lose the abilities to other things which make them distinct which the current syntax offers. It's allow about trade-offs

>You can try to unify them but then you lose the abilities to other things which make them distinct which the current syntax offers. It's allow about trade-offs. Can you give an example of such an ability and the kind of tradeoffs we are talking about here? >It is not always possible to just do a quick read of a language to understand its decisions. A successful programming language to me seems to be much more about being able to communicate the design clearly. How is it data oriented in a way languages that don't call themselves data oriented are not? Which constructs do you have they are lacking? Concrete example of an algorithm that is now better/easier to implement? I agree that some people are not very good at communication and might in theory or perhaps accidentally still be able to design a language with interesting choices, but the world will never know about it.