@lou_dias
A language is not ugly simply because you don't like the syntax. I can make exactly the same claim that basic is obscenely, putrescently ugly. It's haplessly verbose, wordy and coding in it feels like trying to write English with boxing gloves on. That would be my opinion only, however, not some established argument against it.
There's a damn good reason why so many languages have syntax derived from C. It's well-defined, concise and expressive. It's probably the single most successful programming level language of all time and if you think it's on it's way out any time soon, well, don't hold your breath. C syntax based languages exist that cover every major programming paradigm and plenty of more obscure ones.
C is a relic created in a time where every byte counted because memory was limited. It needs to die.
Not liking the syntax is your prerogative but this is just untrue.
Your argument that the syntax is a product of memory constraint is incorrect since it is the size of the resulting object code that matters, not the source. Even a machine with a limited amount of memory can compile large source from disk. The data structures that any compiler builds (C, Fortran, BASIC or whatever other language you fancy) during compilation are far more significant than the actual size of the textual source.
Even if you were to make the claim that it was to reduce the size of source that was being edited, if memory constraints were a prime motivator, there'd be no reason for it to allow long function, variable and structure names, the only practical limits for which are set by the linker.
C syntax is compact simply because it doens't need to be any more verbose.
By all means, prefer using a different syntax, but don't embarass yourself by trying to present your personal dislike of the syntax as some sort of established argument against it.
