[saithound]

I think you made good trade-offs regarding the syntax. Your language needs to be simple in the sense that it should not be complicated to parse unambiguously. But it also had to remain somewhat usable.

I think you made a good choice: it's easy to parse, and not all that difficult to read for the people who are likely to use it, after some minutes of deliberate practice.

Sure, it's quite symbol-heavy, and it's not as clean as, say, Agda or Idris. But (after a few minutes of practice) I find the difficulty entirely comparable to reading Coq.

Unsurprisingly, people who by their own admission never use functional, much less dependently typed, programming languages won't find it easy to read. But nothing you can do would make it easy to read for them, any more than you can make Jack Sprat easy to read for those who do not speak any English. To convey what it does, you'd have to write it in an entirely different language, and it would lose its very purpose in the process.