Why would it be <i>one</i> language? There's no such thing.<p>I write glue code for CLI tools a lot. Something specialized similarly to
shell is required.<p>I write networking code at various levels, sometimes on top of HTTP, other
times I need linewise protocol with SSL/TLS, and sometimes I need to work with
raw IP packets or ethernet frames.<p>I need sometimes to interact with operating system closely. A necessity to
have ABI easily translated to what C gives.<p>There are times when I need fast program with very small memory footprint, so
I need clear control over memory usage.<p>No single language nor runtime can fulfil all these (barring uselessly general
statement that "Linux is such thing"). It's a norm for me to juggle with three
or four languages at the same time on a single project.
Elixir, without the clumsy anonymous function calls (eg.: `sum.(1,2)`. Everything else is pretty much what I want: Functional, not too strict in purity, concurrent, compiled, dynamic, optional static typing, tests in the language core (not an afterthought), first-class comments with doctests, piping, pattern matching.<p>I admit it: syntax matters for me, I'm actually more productive when dealing with truly <i>elegant</i> code. Also I don't do systems level programming (Rust seems interesting for this if I ever need it)
It's possible this exists already, I haven't researched it that heavily, but..<p>Effectively what I want is a high-level scripting language with 'c-like' syntax, that can be compiled into a static binary, to allow easier distribution of (in particular) shell utilities.<p>I have a feeling Go may come close, but I have a vague feeling I wasn't crazy about the syntax of it.