>By going this way you're running towards a brick wall, the wall of your limited brainpower: at one point you will not have enough brainpower to keep juggling t

>By going this way you're running towards a brick wall, the wall of your limited brainpower: at one point you will not have enough brainpower to keep juggling the increasing number of "proper tools" and you'll have to stop growing, stop learning and enclose yourself in warm niche/bubble. I couldn't disagree more with this statement; it seems to me you have this backwards. The purpose of "proper tools" is exactly to encapsulate the complexity and provide a simpler interface with which we can address the problems. In fact, as the level of complexity rises, you need tools that provide the right level of abstraction. In many cases, those tools are specialized because they address specific aspects of the problem. Each such tool pushes out the boundaries of our limited brain power. For instance, I use a lot of code generation in my work. A complicating factor in code generation is the fact that you are working at two or more levels simultaneously; the code generator and the target language. However, with the proper tools, the problem becomes very tractable. In this case, I am referring to explicit code generation, but exactly the same issues arise when generating code with Lisp style macros. As to the universality of languages, I can only say that the practice gives lie to the theory. Once you've used enough languages, their differences (and fitness for particular problems) become clearer.