This comment has the tone of being genuinely inquisitive, yet it mostly comes up with negative and depraved reasons for as to why someone one might dislike $lan

This comment has the tone of being genuinely inquisitive, yet it mostly comes up with negative and depraved reasons for as to why someone one might dislike $lang. - Rational reasons (frustrations with the language design) are briefly acknowledged but then some reason left by the wayside - It is suggested that people don't have principled objections to $lang; they will "latch onto" something else if $misfeature is fixed - Simplicity, a universally praised quality, might be the problem - ... Because it can "humiliate" someone who has wasted time on needless complexity - "$lang has opinions", which all languages have whether they acknowledge them or not. Why should this bug people especially when it comes to $lang? - "Anti-expertise" for some reason, even though creating any "enterprise-ready" language takes expertise and many years of effort. (This also seems to be at odds with the "anti-simplicity" point?) - ... But aren't then people who argue for $lang also anti-expertise? They are after all taking a stance on something that they are not experts at; they should take a neutral stance and defer to the experts I would say that it is rude to suggest that someone might not really be arguing against X and instead ask what they are really upset about, since the follow-up questions and implications are absolutely never flattering. They inevitably just dive into the gutter with suggestions like "maybe simplicity humiliates you".