Less abstract means less is obscured, more truthy. Higher level languages will have numerous control structures to iterate, consider everything from do-until,

Less abstract means less is obscured, more truthy. Higher level languages will have numerous control structures to iterate, consider everything from do-until, do-while, for loops, all the way up to functional languages. That's great. It all gets translated down to machine language code eventually at some low level, either at compile or run time. Most people iterate in assembly the "simplest" way which will vary by architecture but is generally not overly abstract. Similar to how its possible to write in an OO style (inheritance, polymorphism, etc) in non-OO languages but most people writing in non-OO languages do not. I think it would be possible to write a bash shell script that implements the concept of polymorphism, but most people would never do that. Its possible and funny to write thousands of lines of code to do "enterprise grade patterns hello world" but most shell scripters will "echo hello world" and call it good which makes it more truthy, less abstract, less obscured. True, it'll be impossible to infinitely extend and scale the bash "hello world" script, but most software problems are never infinitely extended and scaled anyway. The most powerful tool for a job is rarely the correct tool for the job.