Reducing all this complexity is partly why I'm hoping the Red Language project can succeed where Rebol failed.
Of course you can't do everything, but a good full-stack language could cover perhaps 80% of software needs using well written DSLs. The simple fact that we have so many languages targeting the same thing is a waste and duplicative effort (Java, C#, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure, F#...etc) for business apps and (Python, Matlab, Julia, R, and Fortran) for data science and scientific programming. Also systems languages like (C, C++, Ada, Rust).
On one side it is good to have purpose built languages, but on another it puts a big barrier to entry.
Note that I'm advocating for abstractions, but far fewer languages. Yes, abstractions add complexity, but actually make the code more readable. I shudder to think of humanity having to maintain and support ever increasing levels of software.
I absolutely agree that we actually need fewer languages. The languages we have today really are good enough for the vast majority of programming work. To the extent that they fall short, the solution is to either improve the language or to build good libraries for it.
Of course you can't do everything, but a good full-stack language could cover perhaps 80% of software needs using well written DSLs. The simple fact that we have so many languages targeting the same thing is a waste and duplicative effort (Java, C#, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure, F#...etc) for business apps and (Python, Matlab, Julia, R, and Fortran) for data science and scientific programming. Also systems languages like (C, C++, Ada, Rust).
On one side it is good to have purpose built languages, but on another it puts a big barrier to entry.
Note that I'm advocating for abstractions, but far fewer languages. Yes, abstractions add complexity, but actually make the code more readable. I shudder to think of humanity having to maintain and support ever increasing levels of software.