> There's no such thing as a good language-- there are only languages that are good for a certain purpose.
By that logic, nothing is ever good, as nothing is good for all purposes. Besides, I've said multiple times that there's nothing wrong with having multiple languages for different purposes. Why do you want me to repeat myself?
> Even if you (or a committee of people) managed to identify a set of "perfect" programming languages for 2010, in a few years, they wouldn't be perfect any more. The problems that are most important change over time. In the early nineties, concurrency often seemed like a minor issue, since almost everyone was using single-processor computers. In contrast, good runtime performance was extremely important back then. Nowadays, it doesn't matter as much for many applications. Those are just two examples-- there are literally hundreds of trends in computer architecture and design that are changing things over time.
So, what specific issue does the crack language address? If it has innovative constructs for concurrent applications, great! If it's really great for building a certain type of application, wonderful! But when I saw the slides, I didn't see anything remotely innovative.
> Theorists often feel like there hasn't been very much progress in programming languages since Lisp, since Lisp originated so many of the concepts used by later languages. But from a practical perspective, there has been. You can build a website using Ruby faster than you could with C++. You can write business applications better in Java than you could in COBOL. And so on.
Cobol was already outdated when Java appeared. Therefore the question is not whether Java was an advance over Cobol, but whether it was an advance over what the state of the art was when it appeared. Smalltalk, Lisp, Self and others had been around for a long time then, and OCaml first appeared only a year later (and unlike Java it ran at decent speeds even back then). If anything, Java was a step backwards.