[NotRustAgain]

> a passenger vehicle, dump truck, submarine, and airplane

The problem with using metaphors to make your argument is we generally have to argue about whether the metaphor is even appropriate enough that the conclusions apply to the original topic... It's simpler just to argue the topic.

Within a huge class of problems, I don't need to get a new computer to solve each new thing that comes up. That's a very general tool. Why do I need different programming languages?

> All-in-one compromise solutions only excel [...]

Who asked for a compromise? I could make a short list of all the features I want in a language, and while there isn't one single languages that currently has all those features, I doubt you could make a proof that creating such a language is impossible or would involve some horrible trade off. Your list might be different than mine, but that's not the point.

[kibwen]

  > The problem with using metaphors

Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P

  > I don't need to get a new computer to solve each new 
  > thing that comes up

Except that, in practice, you do. I have a smartphone in my pocket, a laptop in my bag, a desktop in my office, and two personal servers in the cloud. Just because two computers are both effectively Turing machines does not automatically invalidate the importance of form factors, power draw, integrated peripherals, physical location, and other practical differences. This also ignores the existence of domains that actually demand dedicated hardware, like supercomputing. We are never going to live in a world where microcontrollers are just as capable at running weather simulations as the TOP500, because the economics don't pan out. So no, you're right, it is not logically impossible to construct a language that is capable of performing all imaginable tasks, though that's not something that I've ever disputed. Rather than being logically impossible, it's merely economically infeasible. :P

[NotRustAgain]

> Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P

Your second paragraph had a bunch of economic pseudo-theory about what sells... Maybe that explains why we don't have a good general purpose programming language, but it said little about whether there could be one.

[kibwen]

Economics is a social science, pseudo-theory is the bulk of it. :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.

[NotRustAgain]

> :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.

Yes yes, I'll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, I hope you'll keep up the great work maintaining the status quo and contributing to a language which avoids problems that experienced programmers don't really have.

:P