To the contrary, your list smartens the languages up. Your list describes a typical functional programming language, and I certainly would not say most such use

To the contrary, your list smartens the languages up. Your list describes a typical functional programming language, and I certainly would not say most such users are mediocre: 'extra braces (or no braces in favor of white space), no jumping or breaking (since everything is an expression), no fall-throughs (pattern matching is much more powerful than clumsy switches), always requiring explicit conversions (type correctness is worth it), no pointers, no null types (Option types are better) ...' The resulting code is very easy to write and read, although you must approach learning them with an empty cup. Extra railings like contracts, contracts + prover, refinement types and dependent types enforce vigilance in ascending order of brutality. They do not leave room to be lax. Programming languages are meant to counter the limits or deficiencies of human working memory and focus. Better languages aren't profitless trades, the cost of learning and using them must be less than the attendant rewards + cost of not using them. Also, speaking of Doctors and attacking working memory constraints, checklists have been show to significantly reduce complications in surgeries. Type systems and good language design fall in the same category of aiding one in focusing on the bigger picture by alleviating WM of trivialities.