I think that the number of primitive functions in a language like APL should be compared to the number of functions in, say, Python's standard library, which is

I think that the number of primitive functions in a language like APL should be compared to the number of functions in, say, Python's standard library, which is several orders of magnitude larger. In APL, the language is the library. In more mainstream languages there's a sharper delineation. Longer and (sometimes) more suggestive names seem to make the task of learning a large standard library feel less onerous, but the experience of gradually acquiring more familiarity with the building blocks which are readily at hand is ultimately the same.