From a programmer's point of view I agree.
If someone is going to be serious about programming hardware they should learn to use the language properly from the start.
I understand the desire to want it to be simple, but (as I mention later on) if they wanted it to be accessible to people who don't actually want to program then they could have made some better choices.
I'd be more inclined to do that if they had a standalone "Arduino Language" compiler, but as long as they're relying on a poorly written translator it's like someone thinking putting a paper bag over their head is a good disguise.
If they really wanted to target people who don't actually want to program and just want to get their trinkets whirring then they could have picked any number of languages that are easy to learn, like BASIC or Scratch.
Yes it does:
The elements of Arduino (C++) code
Normally I'm telling people that the code they write for the Arduboy is C++ because they have to use C++ to use the Arduboy2 library, and that C is not a subset of C++.
But this one's not quite as clear cut because it's about the Arduino suite as a whole.
Though for most 'sketches' it probably would have to be a C++ compiler.
Now I'm going to be akward and say it's 'assembly', not 'assembler'. The language is an assembly language, the program is the assembler.
If you carry on that chain it becomes "assembly is just machine code with extra processing" and then "machine code is just a bunch of circuits" and then "circuits are just atoms and electricity".
Well, some people do.
Perhaps I ought to pull this out into a new thread "Arduino: is it evil?"