[sdmike1]

I think the non-standard definition of simple is the wrong way of looking at it. people 's thought about what is simple and what is complex is different from person to person. C. is a simple language from a "what primitives do you have to work with?" perspective, however, to knock on effects from those primitives, then the interaction of that code with other code is far from simple.

in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks, parsing a structured text file, input and output into various data formats, and the tools to build upon your work as it gets more complex.

I'm curious to know what your definition of simple is?

[epgui]

In the context of programming language design, a lisp like Clojure would be simple if you ignored all the java things. Haskell is a simple-ish language (despite popular misconceptions).

For me, “simple” needs to be distinguished from “familiar”. Most of the time, people think whatever is familiar is simple, but that just makes the word “simple” less useful. The von Neumann style of programming introduces tremendous complexity.

I would probably agree that C is simple in design. I’m not sure, because I’m not extremely proficient in it, but I think I agree. Although it has tons of complexities in practical use… So perhaps it’s easier to speak of (and compare) the simplicity of higher-level languages.

[xwowsersx]

> in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks

I assume this should read "presents* a simple interface..."?

[sdmike1]

Yes, I was using speech to text and did not proof read closely enough.