Yeah, this seems to be a common thing nowadays, although often with the value cited as "simplicity". I've always found it a bit odd because it seems to me like there are tradeoffs where making things at one level of granularity more clear or simple (or whatever you want to call it) will come at the cost of making things less clear and simple if you zoom in or out a bit at what the code is doing. Assembly is more "clear" in terms of what the processor is doing, but it makes the overall control flow and logic of a program less clear than a higher level language. Explicitly defining when memory is allocated and freed makes the performance characteristics of a program more clear, but it's "ceremony" compared to a garbage collected language that doesn't require manually handling that by default.
I think my fundamental issue with this sort of prioritization is that I think that there's a lot of value in being able to jump between different mental models of a program, and whether something is clear or absolutely ridden with "ceremony" can be drastically different depending on those models. By optimizing for exactly one model, you're making programs written in that language harder to think about in pretty much every other model while quickly hitting diminishing returns on how useful it is to try to make that one level of granularity even more clear. This is especially problematic when trying to debug or optimize programs after the initial work to write them is complete; having it be super clear what each individual line of code is doing isolation might not be enough to help me ensure that my overall architecture isn't flawed, and similarly having a bunch of great high-level abstractions won't necessarily help me notice bugs that can live entirely in one line of code.
I don't think these are specific use cases that a language can just consider to be outside of the scope in the same way they might choose not to support systems programming or DSLs or whatever; programmers need to be able to translate the ideas of how the program works into code and then diff between them to identify issues at both a macro and micro level regardless of what types of programs they're working on.
I think my fundamental issue with this sort of prioritization is that I think that there's a lot of value in being able to jump between different mental models of a program, and whether something is clear or absolutely ridden with "ceremony" can be drastically different depending on those models. By optimizing for exactly one model, you're making programs written in that language harder to think about in pretty much every other model while quickly hitting diminishing returns on how useful it is to try to make that one level of granularity even more clear. This is especially problematic when trying to debug or optimize programs after the initial work to write them is complete; having it be super clear what each individual line of code is doing isolation might not be enough to help me ensure that my overall architecture isn't flawed, and similarly having a bunch of great high-level abstractions won't necessarily help me notice bugs that can live entirely in one line of code.
I don't think these are specific use cases that a language can just consider to be outside of the scope in the same way they might choose not to support systems programming or DSLs or whatever; programmers need to be able to translate the ideas of how the program works into code and then diff between them to identify issues at both a macro and micro level regardless of what types of programs they're working on.