Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This comparison is useful if one supposes that the art of programming is primarily concerned with writing programs. It isn’t, of course. It is mostly concerned with debugging programs. I don't really get this. If you can write programs that have fewer bugs because your language is expressive and prevents them, then naturally there is a lot to gain from valuing a language primarily by how it works when writing code.…
> A language that is brief and concise gives you fewer opportunities to make mistakes I don't think that's necessarily true. Look at brainfuck! But in all seriousness, dynamically typed languages could be categorized as "more expressive" than statically typed languages, and generally allow for cleaner interfaces, but turns static-typing compile-time errors into dynamic run-time errors. What's worse is that your tests…
My point is that the _goal_ of expressiveness is still there and still valuable. We need languages that express our intent safely, clearly, and quickly. The better this is achieved, the less debugging you have to do -- because, by definition, the code will express what you want more clearly and with less room for error.
>It's not what language you use, but /how/ you use it.
How you use a language is determined by the grammar of that language. So I don't see any value in your point here, save for trying to dodge specificity and feign wisdom.