I agree in principle with each of your points. Yet, no-one is going out and saying "General Relativity needs to go away because not enough people are mentally capable of understanding it." That's kinda how I see what you're saying. Just because something is complex and hard doesn't mean that it wasn't done correctly.

Of course, we now enter the shifty realm of "How do you know when something is done correctly". My two rules are general purpose ones that maximize for both shareholder value and programmer productivity. (For the record, that's what Paul Graham maximized for with his business.) Other rules might maximize for programmer replacibility or who knows what else. The point is that different languages will meet the needs of different rules.

Here's an example - I can see no need to ever have to use Java in my professional life. However, my professional life (as far as I can see) is a very specialized world that Java doesn't fit into. I can very easily conceive of a world where Java is the absolute right call. Different rules, different tools.