Most aesthetically pleasing programming language?

>>60770524
MySql

>>60770524
Javascript

C#

>>60770524
D

>>60770524
LISP by far, maybe Prolog comes second

Java. Not only is it the most aesthetically pleasing, it's also the most powerful.

Scratch

>>60770524
Go

>>60771508
C# can do pretty much anything Java can do, plus it has pointers and it has some additional syntactic sugar.

File: 99 bottles of beer.png (53KB, 577x337px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 577x337px

for me, it's Perl

>>60771753
if only netcore had more support for linux

>>60770524
Pascal

>>60771828
It will one day, there is a lot of activity on the project.

>>60771828
What's wrong with mono?

>>60770524
>>60771488
>C#
This.

Better question: Is it worth learning a programming language for the aesthetics alone?

>>60770524
Python

Fortran 77

>>60771478
this, javascript of course

VerboseFuck

C

APL, yall plebs. C is pretty aesthetic too

>>60770524
D and Clojure are both very nice to look at, very readable.

I'd say F#, Scheme, maybe Python follow.

Good C is nice. Haskell is okay, a bit crammed at times.

Ideal imaginary Rust looks good, but idiomatic and performant Rust is as bad as bad C or C++ in general. I hate C++.

>>60770524
QBasic.

>>60772435
It will die off soon.

>>60773203
But why

>>60773248
They were mostly maintained by Xamarin, which was bought by (((Microsoft))). Now they develop .NET Core.

Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish in its finest.

>>60772817
The fact that you have to list self as a method parameter to access the current instance makes it aesthetically hideous.

There were a lot of great languages that were too advanced for their time like CPL, PL/I, ALGOL60, Oberon, the fact that early person computers only had 4k of memory sort of killed the mainstream potential of these languages

>>60770524
racket

>>60773314
it actually does make sense plt wise.

>>60770524
I've only used QBasic, C++, C#, SQL, Ruby, Java, JavaScript, HTML, JASS, ASM and seen some Perl, Kumir, VBasic and Pascal.

Among these, I consider C# to be the most aesthetically pleasing. Ruby gets bonus points for being over-the-top intuitive, but it isn't as easily readable.

>all these posts
>this few mention of C
So this is the power of nu/g/

>>60773687
C's not aesthetic

>>60773278
Plus this a "port" so this doesn't behave exactly the same way. Which is really annoying.

>>60773697
But it is, anon, it is

>>60773697
Properly written C is very aesthetic.

>>60773803
>>60773835
memes

Having to use explicit pointers to pass an object by reference is not aesthetically pleasing.

Swift

>>60773835
>properly written C

Declare an array of function pointers to functions that accept different parameters and that returns a function pointer to a function that accepts two int arguments on the spot.

Go go go.

>>60774263

void (*(*array[])())(int, int);

On the spot. I didn't look anything up. I did check to see if it compiled though.
Realistically though, if you were going to write something like this, you would use typedefs to clean it up. However, this it's very unlikely you would write something like this in a program.

>>60774228
Invisible references are a fucking cancer.

>>60774343
Well done, but you can't possibly claim that this is in any way aesthetically pleasing.

I love C myself, but compound declarations are anything but eye pleasing.

COBOL

/thread

>>60774343
>Invisible references are a fucking cancer.
You seem upset. Don't be upset.

>>60771791
is that a program?

>>60770524
JS haters gonna hate: CoffeeScript looks nice. Less idiosyncratic than Python or Ruby anyways.

>>60771501
this, lisp is the shit

HolyC

>>60771501
(((LISP)))

Hexagony