[AnimalMuppet]

Exactly. I can learn syntax if it's going to pay me back for the effort - if it's going to enable me to avoid bugs, or to solve problems I couldn't, or to be more productive, or to get or keep a job.

Learning syntax that isn't going to pay me back? I don't have time for that.

[rs86]

It takes half an hour to learn syntax

[AnimalMuppet]

It takes a lot longer to learn syntax to the point where I don't have to think about it, so that I can spend my time thinking about the problem instead.

Having to think about the syntax is like not being a touch typist. Sure, I can still press the right keys, but I have to think about doing so, which slows me down and takes my thinking off of what I'm trying to say.

[rs86]

But does coding take more time typing rather than thinking?

[nostrademons]

You've answered your own question about why programmers don't like new syntax. Because most (interesting) coding takes more time thinking than typing, syntax is only a cost, never a benefit. If your language has familiar syntax, then they don't have to pay that cost. If it makes them learn new syntax, it better provide other benefits like access to a new platform, a job that pays much better, or eliminating a large class of bugs. And if two languages both offer that same benefit (like Erlang vs. Elixir, Matlab vs. Python, even Python/Ruby vs. Node.js) programmers will gravitate toward the one that doesn't make them learn new syntax.

[rs86]

People think haskell's or lisp's syntax is bad, but they bring awesome power to solve problems. They are the best languages.

[mattmanser]

(Something (a (small (set (of)) (((programmers have (been claiming) for) decades)) and yet) somehow they never, ever, take) off.))) ((I wonder) (why) that is))))?

The kind of problems that they help with are actually fairly rare, while their disadvantages are expensive. Basically the syntax sucks and all the really useful bits are now in all the other languages any way.