This is a frustratingly common reply to "why is this example unintuitive" across software.
Just because the problem may be higher up the chain, even up to the design of the system, doesn't mean it isn't a problem that has real consequences.
E.g. in this case, one possible solution is to not have the concept of "falsy" and "truthy", forcing 'all' to take a mapping closure (which may necessitate other changes, to the point where you now have essentially a completely different language).
It's useful to call these things out every time they trip us up, if not to fix them, then to avoid them next time somebody starts from scratch.
Just because the problem may be higher up the chain, even up to the design of the system, doesn't mean it isn't a problem that has real consequences.
E.g. in this case, one possible solution is to not have the concept of "falsy" and "truthy", forcing 'all' to take a mapping closure (which may necessitate other changes, to the point where you now have essentially a completely different language).
It's useful to call these things out every time they trip us up, if not to fix them, then to avoid them next time somebody starts from scratch.