1. He calls Array(16) and then talks about there being 16 separators. Of course, there are only 15. This kinda breaks the Batman joke.

2. He writes {}+[] and claims that he's adding a list to an object, then mocks the fact that it gives a different result than []+{} which gives [object Object]. In reality, if you write ({}+[]), you also get [object Object]. I'll leave it as a puzzle for you to figure out why {}+[] is different. (Hint: Gurer vf ab bowrpg gurer.)

What all of these languages have in common is that you can write meaningful programs entirely without pointers or manual memory management. In particular, all of these languages handle strings in a natural, high-level way (treating them as a value) and don't require you to allocate and free buffers for them. Perl goes a step further with arrays and hashmaps and employs a full garbage collector.

I have vague memories of trying C for the first time and getting completely lost and bogged down by all the pointers and memory management. My reaction was the same as yours: how does anyone program in this. Why bother with this complexity when you can just use Pascal where you simply don't have to.

Of course, the Pascal compiler was likely written in C or assembly and all the memory management still had to happen even if it was hidden away from me. To some people, this might mean that I “lost” something, but to me, it meant greater freedom as I was able to explore the world of higher-level programming which I found interesting, and not have to bother with the low-level details which I found tedious and even infuriating.

Well, how do humans do it? Scientists discover new stuff that isn't in any corpus. Even I as a lowly computer user occasionally figure something out about a software without reading a help screen. It's obviously possible to arrive at new information by interpolating existing information.

I'd argue that it is how humans think about ambiguous syntax, except in the special case of operator precedence, which is the most complex example. A more salient example to me would be, say, the case of an ‘else’ block after a double-‘if’:

  if (c) if (d) X; else Y;

> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

Did you mean to say “matter” where you said “mind” and vice versa? It’s obviously the reverse of what you said; everything consists of matter, but what specific arrangements of matter you want to call a “mind” is obviously the abstraction.

Ockam’s razor is not really applicable here. Unless, that is, you want to ascribe something mythical to the mind that exists beyond matter — then it’ll trigger.