"There is no "arguably"."
Tell that to a "hard core" Java programmer. o_O
"So why bother with a syntax for functions and a syntax for methods?"
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. (Or maybe I've misunderstood your motivating example.) Even as purely syntactical sugar, the additional syntax--the sugar--must be parsed/examined. Or was your reference to Ruby simply an aside? Do you intend something like this for free functions?
Code:
all_mighty_universal_object.puts "Hello, World!"
With whatever name may be chosen? O_o
"style is not a valid excuse"
Well, at least we agree there.
"Using a purified OO model (all method) will undeniably reduce the syntax."
This is undeniably true, but do you really want such a verbose language? As a potential user--not a developer--of this language? 'Cause me, I like syntactical sugar for things like closures, operators, constructors, destructors, and generics.
Soma