I downvoted you because what you say is both wrong and harmful. This: > I find this language pretty ugly. And [...] that's enough reason to not use it. is th

I downvoted you because what you say is both wrong and harmful. This: > I find this language pretty ugly. And [...] that's enough reason to not use it. is the worst possible way of choosing a language to use. It's simply stupid to dismiss languages which may suit your current problem on the grounds of aesthetics. I can't imagine a single situation where "disregarding technical advantages" of a language would be even remotely related to the right thing to do. And this: > syntax of it should be cleaner and easier to read than what you are replacing is another pile of misconceptions: no, designing your syntax by comparison to other languages instead of designing it to fit your semantics is NOT a good idea; there of course IS a point in creating languages even if syntax is not "better" in any way (because semantics matter too) and no, you should NOT try to make your syntax "easy to read" but rather simple and consistent, which will make it easy to read without you even trying. At least "easy to read" to those programmers who are able to work with more than one syntax flavour; the rest will have a hard time reading anything anyway, so there's not much you can do about them. I made learning all the languages I can a hobby of mine quite a few years ago and I since learned many very, very different syntaxes: look at Prolog, Forth, Scheme and J for the most basic examples. And what I learned is that they all work and work well, despite not being "clean and easy to read" for people who don't know them. It's normal; what's wrong however is trying to make your ignorance into some kind of generally applicable law and judging languages based on it instead of first learning a bit about them. Now, I'm sorry for being rude, and a little ranty, but I found your suggestion that I'm a part of "groupthink mob" rather offensive.