I wish that would be the standard with which we evaluated languages.
"Easy" syntax and features make up for a bloat such that such tasks become far more complicated.
Which also implies that you have to rely too much on tests, refactoring can be difficult, etc.
Ultimately, you want to be able to shape you tools to match your task at hand, which you can only do if things stay "simple".
In short, it's a good proof of Hickey's talk on simplicity.
Excellent point. I would add there is a hidden dimension that is defined subjectively by the programmer (eg static vs dynamic) which means that there is probably multiple ways to define "simple" (depending on the user's taste), but still I feel lisps hit s local maximum in terms of language design.
Author specifically asked to discuss the post here: