This sounds like the standard "but are they busy?" concern hitting. Folks claim they want folks that are working "smarter" and not "harder." Completely ignori

This sounds like the standard "but are they busy?" concern hitting. Folks claim they want folks that are working "smarter" and not "harder." Completely ignoring that that is, itself, hard. I agree with your general concern. I hate it when, not only do I know that I am in fact lazy, but that is not why I have done less in this case. I genuinely believe the smaller solution is far far preferable. All too often "don't do it" is by far the better option for what so much internal tooling does. To that end, I push back against you wanting a less efficient language. I think efficiency is itself a trap. Redundancy and general pacing is a good thing. Languages that try and forego that are not doing themselves any favors. But, and this is fully to your point, if you don't have the spots in your organization that are fully tolerant to mistakes and bad ideas, than you don't have room in your organization to grow. And if you don't have room to grow as an organization, than you probably don't have room to grow the software, either.