Is it a good syntax if it hides important details? To me that sounds like a bad syntax. I want a readable and beautiful and clean syntax, but that to me also implies making important details clear.
The most important purpose of syntax is to ensure semantics are presented in a clear, readable and consistent manner. If it hides important information, it fails in that.
Note that the languages I've complained about the syntax of in this discussion, such as Lisp and Forth, have very minimal syntaxes, and it may be that they are too minimal, but it is not that minimalism in itself I take issue with, but that the minimalism sacrifices readability. There are languages with small syntax I admire, such as e.g. Oberon (grammar fits in a page and a half of BNF), where the syntax is very focused on clarity - my ideals for syntax are orthogonal to size/complexity.
The most important purpose of syntax is to ensure semantics are presented in a clear, readable and consistent manner. If it hides important information, it fails in that.
Note that the languages I've complained about the syntax of in this discussion, such as Lisp and Forth, have very minimal syntaxes, and it may be that they are too minimal, but it is not that minimalism in itself I take issue with, but that the minimalism sacrifices readability. There are languages with small syntax I admire, such as e.g. Oberon (grammar fits in a page and a half of BNF), where the syntax is very focused on clarity - my ideals for syntax are orthogonal to size/complexity.