I suspect this runs into the blub paradox somewhat[0]. The purpose of language is to teach you think, and so what might be terse and idiomatic in one language m

I suspect this runs into the blub paradox somewhat[0]. The purpose of language is to teach you think, and so what might be terse and idiomatic in one language might be so diffuse and convoluted in another that it might be inscrutable. To put it another way by mutating a well-known phrase, you might go from "there's obviously a bug" to "no obvious bugs". It's like trying to find the flaw in a mathematical proof where you personally are lacking in a concept to have the clarity. So why shouldn't your editor/IDE be aware of your mental model, and present the world to you in a language tailored specifically to your level of abstraction (at that moment). A pseudocode idiolang that might be a blend of concepts from Python, Go, Rust and Typescript as you need them. And when you hit your limit in debugging a problem because it is too diffuse, you could ask the IDE to teach you the new concepts you need to view the code at a higher level of abstraction. You could imagine the UI presenting the same file side by side, with metaclassing on the one side and the alternative on the other, so you can drill into where the bugs might be hiding. [0] https://paulgraham.com/avg.html https://paulgraham.com/avg.html