[throwaway487548]

Many very bright people in the major sects of ML and Scheme tried to achieve perfection, and they have concluded, many times, that perfection implies a mostly-functional strongly (and, perhaps, even statically typed but with optional annotations only, like it is in Haskell) language, possibly with uniform pattern-matching, annotated laziness, and high-order channels, and select and receive in the language itself.

Such a language could be visualized as strict-by-default Haskell (with type-classes, uniform pattern-matching, minimalist syntax - everything, except monads) plus ideas from Erlang, Go and Ocaml.

Perfection and imperativeness, it seems, does not match.

[vortico]

Also, perfection and practicality do not match either, since imperative languages are the most practical for many applications. Pushing software toward perfection gives diminishing returns, and after some threshold, a company will have negative profit due to expensive development costs.

[throwaway487548]

ML is very practical. The only reasons why it did not became popular (or has not been chosen as, say, the basis for Java) are social rather than technical and actually are insults to intelligence.