If something is so advanced or complex that it ''is'' great ''but'' cannot be mastered by any average human any more.

Example: LispLanguage, most of TheMostComplexWhichCanBeMadeToWork

See also LibraryAndPrimitivesBlurring, PowerfulTechniquesAreRisky

Compare with OneSizeFitsAll (where the something is often simple enough to be understood but not complex enough to fulfill all needs)
-----
EditHint: Merge with LispIsTooPowerful, insufficient content.

Lisp is but one example. This is a more general problem. 
  
Problem is not defined. Lisp is not an example of anything unless you weaken the claim, as fair number of
programers claim to use Lisp, including some the the best on the planet, so perhaps TooPowerfulForMyOwnGood is a
better starting point.  -- Simple is as Simple does.

''Okay, let's see if we can list general patterns or principles of the claims floating around:''

* '''Diluted Standards''' - Something that can be made everything for everybody can become nothing to nobody because everybody reshapes it into their own image, making inter-person communication of design difficult. Warts in "ugly" tools can often serve as common reference points.
** Php's myriad interpreter configuration switches have been accused of this.
* '''Learning Curve''' - The tool may be powerful, but it's learning curve is so long that most retire or move into management before the knowledge pays off. (Software development has an early career "expiration" curve, not dissimilar to sports.)

** Well I do not think I have expired but I leave others to Judge. 
*** A company doing hiring cannot know in advanced how long you'll be around. They often must make decisions based on a "typical" developer. If a company lets developers choose the language/tool, they may be consciously or unconsciously biased toward "job security" techniques, such as cryptic code or results.
** It may well be that the power of a tool leads to complexity which offsets its power, but I find it is rather less powerful tools that lead to complexity. Still I do not deny that this concept can be defined, but you must also now define Power vs complex vs Good Good for what, complex for whom, power to what end?
*** I'd like to see actual examples out of curiosity.
*** No I don't think you actually would,but if so, prove your good faith and I will consider it. Otherwise I must assume that you are top. It is a very sorry state that it has come to this. If you are not top I pray you take no offense, but then if you know top I expect you will understand. If you are top, I hope that you will take as much offense as needed to make you play somewhere else. Failling to sign your name if it is you will no longer serve to pull in troll bait.  --Bottom 
*** ''If you wish to make long rants about my alleged evilness, I suggest you take it somewhere else. Other WikiZen''''''s don't want to witness long-winded personal lovers quarrels. ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstTopDiscussion is one place for hate mail. --top''

*** All I want to know is if you are top so I can avoid exactly that. Thank you for your candor.