Hare's value proposition is simplicity- which allows you to better reason about the software you write, for one thing. We are each entitled to our own opinion about how valuable that is.

Hare's "value proposition" of simplicity is, simply, a shuck. Any software effort has essential complexity that your language may help you manage, or chuck you in the deep water to sink or swim. Hare does the latter, and is even self-righteous about it.

Your opinion of Hare's view of simplicity is your opinion. Any software effort has some amount of essential complexity, in my experience many languages and tools quite a bit of incidental complexity that could be avoided.

Avoiding unnecessary complexity is everybody's responsibility. Dumping every last bit of unavoidable complexity onto the programmer where it has been long demonstrated that tooling can take care of much of it is simply irresponsible, and inexcusable.

I do not excuse it.

It's not really relevant.

Besides, none of those have to do with software engineers. Compliance doesn't imply any individual responsibility.

> I've worked in defense and there are stringent security requirements for applications and servers.

Like? FEDRAMP? The vast majority of compliance is about threat modeling and access controls.

No, STIGs.

> The vast majority of compliance is about threat modeling and access controls.

If compliance doesn't address security, that sounds like a bigger issue than a new hobby language existing.