I don’t think your definition is badly chosen. In fact I think it is a pretty good demarcation between language ideals. However, I would define ‘kitchen sink language’ as one that has a bit of everything in the language itself and has the syntax to ‘support’ those bits of everything. Like a language that has lambdas, functions, methods, type classes, value types, box types, Types of types, macros, lifetimes, templates, multiple looping constructs… the list can go on. I think the real exemplars for ‘kitchen sink’ in this conversation is to differentiate between Go and C++. The amount of concepts in C++ is staggering and Go is in contrast brain dead simple. I think Rust is absolutely on the C++ side of this divide and is primarily what GGP was getting at in their comment.
