This is probably one of the reasons why many find POSIX shell languages to be unpleasant. There are too many syntactical sugars that abstract too much of the underlying mechanisms away, to the level that we don't get it unless someone explains it. Compare this with Lisps, for example. There may be only one branching construct or a looping construct. Yet, they provide more options than regular programming languages using macros. And this fact is not hidden from us. You know that all of them ultimately expand to the limited number of special forms.
The shell syntactical sugars also have some weird gotchas. The &2>&1 question and its answer are a good example of that. You're just trading one complexity (low level knowledge) for another (the long list of syntax rules). Shell languages break the rule of not letting abstractions get in the way of insight and intuitiveness.
I know that people will argue that shell languages are not programming languages, and that terseness is important for the former. And yet, we still have people complaining about it. This is the programmer ego and the sysadmin ego of people clashing with each other. After all, nobody is purely just one of those two.
The shell syntactical sugars also have some weird gotchas. The &2>&1 question and its answer are a good example of that. You're just trading one complexity (low level knowledge) for another (the long list of syntax rules). Shell languages break the rule of not letting abstractions get in the way of insight and intuitiveness.
I know that people will argue that shell languages are not programming languages, and that terseness is important for the former. And yet, we still have people complaining about it. This is the programmer ego and the sysadmin ego of people clashing with each other. After all, nobody is purely just one of those two.