Every once in a while there is an exception. Then that guy says "If your sending me to Australia I'm going to use my vacation to scuba drive the Great Barrier Reef" - and his body is never found. True story, it took months for someone else to figure out everything that guy knew.

Then we got a large oak tree once, logs you couldn't even life split clean when you barely did more than blow on them.

> before it collapsed

This is a real problem - communication implies two-way, or at least intentional one-way. Across light-years of the galaxy anything that doesn't last for 200,000 years (or at least close to that) can't communicate. Arbitrary advanced technology has only detected life advance enough to detect their signals out a few light-years (assuming they care to look), and then they need to get a return signal back to us (again assuming they care, and we are looking)

In some cases, however quite often, the spec is much simpler. For instance, it's easy to say that after running sort on some list, that the result is sorted. However, it is very hard to come up with the algorithm to do that from the specification. Sometimes that is even a point. Bubble sort, quick sort, tim sort, we can go on and on. There's a huge number of different sorts that computer science have discovered over the years. They all should have the same result and so you should be able to prove they do the same thing. However, in the real world there are often reasons you would prefer one to another despite all meeting the same spec.

Radio communications between tween solar systems require more energy than we have. We couldn't detect earth level civilizations in the nearest solar system (which probably doesn't have earth like life) even if both of us by chance aimed at each other at the correct time.

The problems of the code I'm writing far exceeds the complexity of the language. Your complaint about complexity fall flat to me, unless you are working on a trivial program you need to deal with things far more complex than any language.