There's a lot of hand-waving at and against programming languages with reduced specs these days, things like:

> A language or tool which prioritizes its own implementation or specification over the interface it presents to users will never be easy or enable its users to achieve simplicity as they must wrangle the remainder of complexity from the incomplete tool. Such a tool is at best superficially simple.

Ergo, checkmate forth.

How does it follows that a simple specs equates a hindering interfaces, why do they always make this leap.

I mean, okay perhaps brainfuck and subleq is a bit to close to the tarpit side of things, but how much convenience does one really need to be effective at solving any one programming task? Don't most simple programming languages and assemblies give enough for any one to build the things they need.

Is it because programmers are dead set in using abstractions they deem not worthy to learn?

Oh god, no types, no objects? what, are we to live like savages. We couldn't POSSIBLY write anything without cluttering ourselves with a billion training wheels.

@neauoire It is entirely possible to create such abstractions in Uxntal or in Forth for that matter. In Scheme that has been the custom forever. So the criticism would then move to "but they aren't native" or something like that.

It's to my mind an idle debate, because what people are really saying is "I like what I know and I don't like change"