@amerika @mia @AnimeTradCath @BowsacNoodle @CatLord @DiamondMind @Inginsub @LordMordred @NecroKvntPuke @SoyMagnus @Terry @Waerloga @anonymous @dcc @ehhh @gh0st @ins0mniak @jasonl8446 @kumicota @lunarised @marine @mischievoustomato @peemasons @pressure @pwm @redneonglow @sjw @thebitchisback @threat @tiskaan @warmbeverageenjoyer

> On a more serious note, a sane species would have focused on developing and maintaining libraries in a language universally used

The Esperanto of computer science!

Programming languages are a notation for algorithms. It's neither possible nor desirable to produce a single universal language any more than it is for a natural language. Less, in fact: you can describe food in any language, but you cannot express the same sort of things in one line of awk as you can in one line of K or one line of SQL, and vice versa. You're not going to be able to talk about parsing HTML in the same programming language you use to write to memory-mapped I/O registers.

> instead of trying to make syntax diapers for the clueless.

I do agree here, but the market for clueless idiots has not shrunk ever.