Yes, the distinction between class and instance methods in an interface with + and - characters must be one of the most elegant solutions introduced in a programming language ever.

Seriously, I could never understand this claim of "elegance" of Objective C…

Really? Whinging about syntax? You don't understand how cleanly dividing the C bits and bobs from the Smalltalk-derived object system by using distinct syntax could be considered a more elegant solution to the problem than C++'s insistence in rooting both worlds in a single hierarchy of functionality?

In the case of Erlang the answer to your question about meaningful differences is: oh yes! I could list more, but there are two:

- support for concurrency. After tasting it you never will want to go back to techniques normally used in the languages you listed

- data immutability, which makes reading code so much easier.

So you think that in USSR there were startups and private investors? Interesting.

No but they had two kinds of money. Rubles and accounting Rubles.

No they liked to reward regular people with non-material things.

You mean experience is gulag is truly priceless for entrepreneur.

Well that was for very low key entrepreneurs. More serious ones generally got death sentence if caught

They did have startups and private investors, but it was obviously black market and was punishable by death.

"We have problems, let’s introduce some code style guidelines, linting, error reporting and most importantly tests!" "Nah, let's just switch to Typescript, it will solve all those problems. At least partially."

I mean, look at the number of tests needed to replace a few lines of types. You have to check the behavior of your functions for all kinds of invalid inputs. With typescript you still need tests but less of them. And also you can get rid of a lot of input validation in your production code.

It’s not either/or. Nice strawman you put up here.

No I didn’t. The statement was that Typescript solves the listed issues, which is obviously not true. There may be of course discussion whether TS _helps_ to solve such issues but you won’t be able to convince me that TS _solves_ e.g. lack of testing.

Erlang guarantees tail call optimisation.

No it wouldn't. Sending three or four transfers from mobile banking app is for sure faster than finding bank number, calling them, listening to the info that the conversation will be recorded, listening to the menu, then listening to music interrupted with "we will be with you shortly" etc. I guess I could send 20 transfers at least during this time.

C compatibility was the very reason for which C++ is bigger, more complicated and less safe than a similar language not compatible with C could be.

Objective C and D both have excellent C compatibility. C# has very good one. I think all 3 languages are easier to use.

They all may have excellent C compatibility, but this is not the point. The point is that without C compatibility C++ could be smaller and simpler, and yet still meeting the same goals and covering the same use cases. Objective C has Smalltalkish object system glued to C base. Fundamental C++ techniques like RAII not possible there. D has GC. C# runs in a VM. I would not call a language with any of those features very similar to C++.

OTOH if not for C compatibility we would not have this discussion, since we would most likely never heard of C++.

Really? C++ accidentally has a Turing complete templating layer. I suppose one could point to Common Lisp but if you think that is simple....

Well, Common Lisp is simple. Except maybe the Metaobject Protocol (which ultimately didn't make it into standard, but it sort of still is). And except eval-when. Eval-when is magic.

I never said that this language would be simple. Just simpler than C++ we know.

A side note: Lem knew and liked GEB, and there are many similarities between e.g. dialogues in GEB and Lem's The Cyberiad.

I originally read this as suggesting that The Cyberiad was inspired by GEB; but, of course, chronologically, it could only be the other way.

Not that I doubt you, but do you know any reference for Lem's fondness for GEB?

In "Thus Spoke Lem" - a several hundred pages interview with Lem - there is a chapter about Lem's likes and dislikes in literature. He is asked about books which influenced his thought and he mentions several of them, read when he was young. When asked about later influences he talks about GEB and Mind's I only. He says that again and again he sees in those books concepts similar to his own, but he is sure that Hofstadter reached them independently. I do not think that an English translation of Thus Spoke Lem exists.

Another connection between Hofstadter and Lem: in Le Ton Beau de Marot there is a chapter where Hofstadter discusses possible ways of translating How the World Was Saved from Cyberiad.

I'd never heard of that interview; now I'll have to see if I can find a copy. Thanks!

Don't destroy Joyce's wordplay: it is Finnegans Wake, not Finnegan's Wake

my mistake. apologies.

Then Perl 6 aka 2000 would share the fate of Wordstar 2000. But I guess it will anyway.