> seeming incompatibility with producing complex software [...] inherent in [...] minimal syntax design [...] ? Perhaps they are culturally associated? Imagin

> seeming incompatibility with producing complex software [...] inherent in [...] minimal syntax design [...] ? Perhaps they are culturally associated? Imagine a Forth bootstrap moving quickly on to C ABI and dynamic linking, to libpython and python ast vocabulary, and to numpy etc. Or a "parse all the languages" GLR/mixfix-expr/regex-token sandwich parser and some LLVM vocabulary. But ... that's not "doing Forth". Culturally. Lisps could read `a[i] = 3` as sugar for `(setf (aref a i) 3)`, but don't. And for overlapping reasons, an organization for weeks struggles to even build its big CommonLisp thing (reader symbol conflict hell). When a community doesn't much go somewhere, the path is unlikely to be smooth. And so a non-technical cultural challenge becomes something more. Minimal syntax has value and power. Non-minimal syntax has value. So if there's one, but not the other, that seems notable, and perhaps a symptom of other issues around tooling up for complexity?