Jason Knight well actually there are people who agree with you. personally I don't care if it's fn, fun, func, function, () => { } this is a question of syntaxation.
And I am more about the message, which is what you claimed in the certain arguments ... the how vs the what, if I understood you correct.
Which is an interesting contradiction to some degree in your reasoning, but then we all contradict ourselves to some degree.
a lot of the language design is based on the ML and ofc the original implementation in OCaml did make some influence and afterwards the C++ people who came in and did their part by adding certain syntax and intentions.
Give me the mathematical model where they screwed up in the end this is like my old professors criticising my handwriting instead of what I wrote or if understood it.
Using subjective esthetics as prime argument against a complete language, it's just disappointing to me. However I also don't like all of the syntax or concepts. There are so many points, we can argue about models, implementation, abstractions where value can be produced from opposing point of views
but just esthetics?
to quote mills:
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
anyhow that's besides the point and the whole syntax part is a redherring you threw in.
The point is they do a good job, the language progresses and it works without a supreme leader.
This is not a definition of quality or paradigm it's just a fact.
It has its flaws like every model ... we're not naive .... we know that for example an feudal, aristocratic, fascistic, communistic, democratic, liberal, social or whatever system has flaws there concurrent ideas/forces and this always has a price and contradicting executions in the application.
But the point is every model is flawed ... you prefer wirth languages and an assertive personality in leading positions.
and I just don't care .... as long as you don't BS around. I will accept an assertive person in leadership and if the person oversteps my boundaries I will tell him/her most likely the götz-zitat or something similar.
... pluralism of truth .... if you apply your model correct I am willing to let you have your model. It doesn't mean I think your model is the only valid one.