First I'm not sure if the words the author is putting in Brett's mouth are supposed to be ironic (i.e. the author argues against that line of reasoning) or not. I'm going to take them at face value.
The post conveys the false idea that mathematical purity/simplicity and use simplicity are at opposite ends of an imaginary spectrum. If anything, the optimal is somewhere at their intersection.
That is, the ideal tool should be mathematically simple and sound, while still being intuitive.
We should also admit that we do not know of a good, reliable method to write good programs; and this fact is completely independent of the programming language used. Languages have different properties. Some are beginner-friendly, others scale well to large system, some both; but in all cases, what's valuable is the thinking that leads to the program. In another commenter's words: formalizing murky idea.
The post conveys the false idea that mathematical purity/simplicity and use simplicity are at opposite ends of an imaginary spectrum. If anything, the optimal is somewhere at their intersection.
That is, the ideal tool should be mathematically simple and sound, while still being intuitive.
We should also admit that we do not know of a good, reliable method to write good programs; and this fact is completely independent of the programming language used. Languages have different properties. Some are beginner-friendly, others scale well to large system, some both; but in all cases, what's valuable is the thinking that leads to the program. In another commenter's words: formalizing murky idea.