&gt; But that&#x27;s not necessarily a bad thing!<p>hmm, i have a diametrically opposite opinion about it. languages (successful ones at least) are designed to solve a problem, not prove a point :)<p>for example, lisp, c etc. all came into being because the designers found nothing which would help them do whatever they were doing e.g. for lisp, describe an abstract notion of computation, and for &#x27;c&#x27; write fairly low level code without dropping down to assembly etc.<p>if teaching &#x27;language theory&#x27; etc. is the end goal of a language, and it&#x27;s not an unworthy goal at all, probably more &#x27;syntax free&#x27; languages e.g. oberon, scheme, lisp etc. might be better ?<p>[successful languages: imho, are the ones that have just stood the canonical &#x27;test of time&#x27; and i would include only 3 here: fortran (blaspheme!), lisp and C]