>Following this logic, why aren't you writing your code in English?
Because slippery slope arguments never shone light on any situation.
>The real world is complex.
Which is neither here, nor there. We're talking about programming languages -- where you can be 10x as complex as another, but as long as you're both Turing Complete, you can't really do anything substantially more.
So, this is not about more power to handle "the real world", but about ergonomics. Which nobody ever said were C++ strong point.
>Don't confuse hiding complexity with minimizing complexity.
Well, we should also not confuse adding complexity with adding expressiveness.
I thought of Brooks when I saw the title; as I mentioned in my other comment, I see a kind of amusing pendant to Conway's law here: a complex programming language will produce a complex codebase.
Because slippery slope arguments never shone light on any situation.
>The real world is complex.
Which is neither here, nor there. We're talking about programming languages -- where you can be 10x as complex as another, but as long as you're both Turing Complete, you can't really do anything substantially more.
So, this is not about more power to handle "the real world", but about ergonomics. Which nobody ever said were C++ strong point.
>Don't confuse hiding complexity with minimizing complexity.
Well, we should also not confuse adding complexity with adding expressiveness.