When I was closer to my teenage years, I tried what I considered a sizable variety of programming languages and over time gravitated more towards C and Lua and

When I was closer to my teenage years, I tried what I considered a sizable variety of programming languages and over time gravitated more towards C and Lua and less towards everything else, the latter which is specially mentioned a few times in this article. I found that they both shared a philosophical simplicity (even if it only seemed that way with C, considering how much complexity you later learn about) and over a decade later I've not found the same philosophy in any other programming languages. They all tend to be written with the goal of adding features that are suppose to make the programmer's life easier—and here's the distinction—rather than designing a language that is powerful but simple. This of course has shortcomings of its own, but the trade-offs are ones that I typically seek. The grammar for Lua is delightfully short, which seems to be a significant source of its beauty. https://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8 https://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8 I'd love to be educated on similarly easy languages. I'm not sure what the lingua franca of the future for software developers should look like, but I forfeit that it probably should be slightly more complicated than C or Lua in terms of looks. At least in terms of optional standard libraries provided for things like cache levels and GPU support. Perhaps that's outside of the scope of what a programming language should provide to users, though? I'm not sure. It seems like we sit on a lot of complexity and don't use it as efficiently as we could be, though. Maybe some of these things the underlying virtual machines or compliers should be doing for us as they currently do, but extending this reach.