One man&#x27;s hieroglyphics are another man&#x27;s bread and butter.<p>It is all about shared culture. You don&#x27;t write<p><pre><code>   empty x
   repeat a times
     repeat b times
       add an item to x
   count the items in x
</code></pre>
but the hieroglyphical<p><pre><code>  x = a × b
</code></pre>
Because &quot;everybody knows what multiplication is&quot;. And even the explicit loop has lots of shared culture, for example in the idea what variables are, what a loop is, where it ends, that we do not use × but asterisks for multiplication, etc.<p>Modern languages may require more cultural background, but if that is useful for program comprehension that in itself isn&#x27;t reason to say that disqualifies them. If it did, we would never have moved towards languages with malloc&#x2F;free, garbage collection, or classes, the weirdness of IEEE floats, to mention a few things.<p>So, any discussion about new terminology&#x2F;language constructs should mention costs and benefits. Also, which of them is greater will often depend on the target audience.