@ryo @charliebrownau @coin @furgar @udon Sounds interesting. I'm more interested in reading about programming than in actually programming. Maybe I'm just a fake and a fraud. At least I admit it, I guess.

There are way too many languages, though. I actually read a lot and tried quite a few of them because when I got more interested in programming again for a while, I wanted to know "what is the best language?". My favorites were Forth and Lisp. Forth I think is inherently more read-only, though. With prefix syntax, you know that the first element in a list is the thing that will be done (unless it's quoted), and then see all the arguments. In Forth, you see all the arguments, and then you see what is done to them.

Fine for writing, probably not so fine for reading. You almost have to read it backwards, while keeping track of the stack in your head (it's fun to do, almost like a game, but reading must be more difficult). But just like Lisp, it's immensely powerful, just from the simple design of it (Smalltalk is also in that category, and even more dead than the rest), not from stacking (HEH!) a billion features on top of what is already a giant mess. Other languages are like evolution, but those languages are like the CHAD "Intelligent Design".

Anyway, the number of languages that are even comparable to those is very small, despite the number of languages in existence. One (meme?) term that people use to say why Lisp is powerful, is homoiconity. Look at the number of languages that Shitpedia says have it:
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Homoiconicity#Implementation_methods

And almost all of them are dead or dying. Survival of the most marketable, I guess.