Then it's probably a good thing that no one was making that claim. You may instead find people claiming that the complexity "isn't a problem" or "can be avoide

Then it's probably a good thing that no one was making that claim. You may instead find people claiming that the complexity "isn't a problem" or "can be avoided by convention." I don't fully agree with either of those statements. A "complexity safety switch" (nice term, by the way) helps to alert programmers that more difficult language constructs are at play in a given piece of code. Identifying and advertising the use of problematic-but-useful language features seems like a good compromise between omitting them and allowing people to naively wander into them.