Because not all code is yours. In a team, the time spent on “rabbit holes” adds up, increasing the risk of bugs. A `slower` but predictable language can lead to more consistent, maintainable code, which is often more valuable in the long run or last but not least, running in production.
> In a team, the time spent on “rabbit holes” adds up, increasing the risk of bugs.
It adds up with the number of people on the team? Or the number of people on the team squared? Cubed? nlogn? Because a lot of those options would still favor the former language.
And if it's happening particularly often, that means the rate will fall off drastically as mastery is achieved.
I see a risk when code does something different from expectations. I don't see any risk when code has some kind of novel syntax that requires looking it up. Or when you learn about a feature from the documentation or a blog post.
Being predictable is quite valuable, but predictability is different from memorizing every feature.
