Part of the problem, I think, is that minimalism is only defined with regard to some operation, function, or task, at some level. So what might be minimal for o

Part of the problem, I think, is that minimalism is only defined with regard to some operation, function, or task, at some level. So what might be minimal for one task becomes complex for another, or vice versa. I think many languages have some implicit set or class of functions in mind, and some of the frustrations people encounter is in a mismatch between what the language was designed for and what they want to apply it to. I still think minimalism comes into play as a language design goal for an application domain, in the sense some languages are unnecessarily obtuse. But I also think there is something else — I'm not sure what the term is, but "scalability" or "abstractability" comes close — related to a language's capacity for minimalism at multiple levels of abstraction. That is, can you simplify code as need be if youre not interested in the details, but delve into the details if need be?