Modula-2 wasn't really a contemporary of C's. By the time it was released, C had already taken over the world. Plus, it's yet another case of something that looks good but has never really been tested. While not quite Modula-2, in the early oughts I was working on a large project that was half written in C++ and half in Ada. We're talking millions of lines of code in both languages here. The Ada code looked nice but we were cursing when we had to work with it for two reasons: we had to consult thick Ada manuals to grapple with language intricacies, and compilation times were frustratingly slow. With C++ we could spend more time thinking about the algorithms as there was less "language lawyering", and we could run more tests (ironically, C++ now suffers from both of these problems). Perhaps that's why to this day I prefer smaller languages with short compilation times (I like Clojure but dislike Scala; I like Zig but dislike Rust).

My point is that when people say that one language is technically superior to another, what they really mean is that it's superior in the technical aspects that they themselves value more than the aspects where the other language is technically superior. This is all fine, except that these personal preferences aren't distributed equally. This is a little like the Betamax vs. VHS debate. Sure, Betamax had a superior picture quality that some valued, but VHS had a superior recording time, which others valued but that latter group was bigger.

As for C# -- strong disagree there. I think they're making the classic mistake of trying to solve every problem in the language and soon, resulting in a pretty haphazard collection of features, quite a few of them are anti-features, making up a pretty complicated language. For example, they have both properties and records, while in Java we figured that by adding records we'll both direct people toward a more data-oriented form of programming and at the same time make the problem of writing setters so much less annoying to the point it shouldn't be addressed by the language (while properties have the opposite effect of encouraging mutation). They've painted themselves into a very tight corner with async/await (the same with P/Invoke, which constrained their runtime's design making it harder to add user-mode threads), and I think they've made a big security mistake with interpolation -- something we're trying to avoid with a substantially different design. Also, while richer languages do have a lot of fans, all else being equal more people seem to prefer languages with fewer features. Our hypothesis is that it's better to spend a few years thinking how to avoid adding a language feature (like async/await or properties) than to spend a few months adding it.

Also, every feature you add constrains you a little in the future (and every language makes this tradeoff early when it's trying to acquire users, but once it's established you need to be more careful). That's why we try to keep the abstraction level high at the expense of a quicker and tighter fit to a particular environment. This delays some things, but we believe it keeps us more flexible to adapt to future changes. It's like having an adaptation budget that you don't want to fully spend on your current environment (I think P/Invoke and properties are such examples of overfitting that pays well in the short term and make you less adaptable in the long term). The complexity budget is another you want to conserve. Add a language feature to make every problem easier, and over time you find yourself not only constrained, but with a pretty complex language that few want to learn.