Sure, I can do that.

Why the HELL would you need objects and object oriented programming? Wherever you do foo.blah(), you could just do foo_class__do_blah(obj)… so what do objects really grant you that you can’t do with basic procedural programming?

Why do you need Python’s function decorators? You can just manually copy and paste whatever logic you need into each and every function, instead of decorating them.

Why have an iterator protocol? Every datum can have it’s own bespoke way of iteration that you simply have to memorize on a case by case basis (and can not be abstracted over in any common way), why make everything conform to the same interface?

Why have anonymous functions that can close over their lexical scope (what people usually refer to as “closures”)? Consider:

  let x = 0;
  let inc = () => x++;

You could just write:

  function inc(bindings) { return bindings.x++; }

And then remember to pass along bindings whenever you need to call inc. Besides, that’s more or less what’s going on behind the scenes.

I could keep going.

We have these facilities not because they are essential (go program in assembler, and you’ll see how few programming techniques and concepts your processor actually cares about), but because they are nice to have. They are nice to have because they provide us tools for abstraction, so by solving the general case, you solve a host of concrete cases.

Lenses let you abstract over data traversal and projection.

Maybe you don’t appreciate that, and that’s fine. There are C programmers who don’t mind writing 100 different hash tables for different keys and elements. If you are a Python/TS developer, I’m pretty sure you’d find that surprising — if you want a dictionary/hashtable, you just use a dict and call it done — you wouldn’t go build a new dictionary class for each and every key-type/value-type pair.

Different people have different tolerances for the drudgery of solving the same problem for the 100th time.

However: while I don’t understand why someone would choose vanilla ice cream if they’re given the option of chocolate, I wouldn’t act flabbergasted in such a scenario. Why would I? Why should I expect my desires to be the same as everyone else’s?

The only reason I can think of that someone would express shock at someone choosing vanilla over chocolate is if they think that the preference for vanilla indicates something is fundamentally wrong them. Or in other words: being a condescending bigot.

That’s kinda how you’re coming off.

In the event that you were actually asking in good faith: if you like to broaden your skills so you can finish programming work faster, I’d recommend reading up on lenses. If you don’t care about that, that’s fine too, but I’d recommend against expressing shock at the fact that others do care about these types of things.