Generally agreed, except: let's be careful with the notion of simplicity. I used the word "simplistic" which bears some negative flavor (pointlessly simple?). Lisp is relatively simple and yet powerful, i.e. it is not simplistic. C++ is incredibly complex (dare to write a full blown modern C++ compiler?) and powerful. Not surprisingly though, the simplicity of Lisp doesn't make it easier to grasp.
From this point of view, languages that are neither complex nor allow for complexity can be called "simplistic". They are easy to learn, easy to write code in, and as easy to grow to unmaintainable sizes because of their verbosity. Since we have very few readers here at the bottom of the thread, I will admit that every time I see all kinds of dancing around class instantiation, endless method calls etc in Java, where in some other language it would take a single function call, it reminds me of how kids count the steps out loud when they go up or down the stairs. When you grow older, you don't count any more, it's kind of implied :)
And I haven't found a better measure of quality of programming languages than that proposed by Paul Graham here: http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html
Edit: just noticed downvotes for my previous comment, so no, we are not alone :)
mojuba, I have to thank you for that link. I confess that I had never read that document prior to today. The thing that I like most about it is that he leaves it open ended.
He doesn't pretend to have all of the answers but rather invites the reader to embark on a thought exercise. Ignoring the question of comparing languages, that is an excellent example of how to write concerning this type of topic.
On comparing languages, I have to say that comparing languages based on power does make sense - with power defined as programmer productivity. From this perspective, I can understand your view on Java.
But is it the language itself that is to blame or the spaghetti code that all too often results from inexperienced users? I recall that the JRuby team has done some interesting things within the limitations of the Java language.
Note: To those who down-voted the original comment, I did not think that the down-voting is the most optimum solution for when you have a different perspective on an issue. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to chime into the discussion and increase everyone's knowledge with your perspective on the issue? This type of thing is why I have to ignore votes and just try to learn.
From this point of view, languages that are neither complex nor allow for complexity can be called "simplistic". They are easy to learn, easy to write code in, and as easy to grow to unmaintainable sizes because of their verbosity. Since we have very few readers here at the bottom of the thread, I will admit that every time I see all kinds of dancing around class instantiation, endless method calls etc in Java, where in some other language it would take a single function call, it reminds me of how kids count the steps out loud when they go up or down the stairs. When you grow older, you don't count any more, it's kind of implied :)
And I haven't found a better measure of quality of programming languages than that proposed by Paul Graham here: http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html
Edit: just noticed downvotes for my previous comment, so no, we are not alone :)