algol-esque

If Erlang was written with an Algol-esque syntax it would have taken off years ago.

It's almost inconceivable that one could translate a concatenative program back into Algol-esque syntax [2].

It's also possible another Algol-esque language that isn't Java, but is syntactically closer to Java, making people more comfortable, will arise.

Gambit Scheme has what they call `six-script` which is essentially a refactoring of Scheme grammar to fit into an Algol-esque syntax.

Go just happens to be the most familiar Algol-esque of the bunch right now.

But Erlang really doesn't do anything that couldn't be in Algol-esque syntax.

In addition to the already-observed point that Go's concurrency story has always been better than OCaml's, Go also offers it to you in an Algol-esque syntax.

Lisp does things with its bizarre syntax, making it obvious how to write correct macros and being homoiconic, which translates poorly back into Algol-esque infix languages.

I really do prefer lisp, but most of the world prefers algol-esque syntax.

For one thing, to program in Erlang or Haskell requires programming in Erlang or Haskell, which is why I mentioned the fact that Go is still an Algol-esque language.

Haskell has a radically different syntax, but it does things with that syntax and its pervasive currying to enable a powerful succinctness that one can not imagine being translated back into the Algol-esque framework.

I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Algol-esque languages, and just about every last line (by which I mean > 99.9%, with possibly exceptions once in a blue moon where I accidentally hit tab before I compile or something like that, which just gets cleaned up the next time I reformat anyways...) of that was properly indented.