What's wrong with fn? It's perfectly understandable. I don't understand what the bikeshedding about keywords like this is about.

I kind of appreciate fn, personally. It's nice having function declaration lines with two less unnecessary characters in their length.

I use emacs' prettify-symbol mode to turn every language's function keyword into ʩ. Don't think I incurred in God's wrath just yet.

How about "proc"? Too different? I don't like fn either but function is too much. Fun and func aren't great either. I'd go with proc or fn.

"func" is fine; "function" is too long. "fn" is also good, but for example, Go was designed with "func," and it's one of the most successful, readable languages in the world, so why not?

C++ does not have a function keyword at all, I wonder why did they add it in the first place.

F# uses “fun” and I like it. The vowel does help a bit and I never confuse it with the English word. The worst one IMHO is Haskell’s “\”.

Since interop is such a big design goal I wonder if fn was chosen after analyzing the impact of alternative keywords present in large c++ code based that would impact interop in a negative way (eg requiring more escaping).

I like it the most when there's no keyword. Just name() and return type.

Pony's keywords are the best. "fun" and "be" are just, well, fun lol.

I agree, I hate fn. Also not a fan of func though.

In C++ you can use indifferently either the class or typename keyword to introduce template arguments (because of course you can). A lot of styleguides suggest using typename because class is slightly misleading (the type could be anything not just a class).

In practice everybody just uses class, because who as the time to type the full keyword and signature declarations in C++ are already unwieldy as it is.

Tbh, I wonder why modern languages still have a function keyword at all, e.g.:

    const add = (a: i32, b: i32): i32 => a + b;