[diogenes4]

> If (and I grant, this is a big if) you are used to them, the symbolic nature of APLs allows to discuss code fragments (and even entire* algorithms) using inline elements instead of as separate interspersed blocks.

So I easily grant you this, though I don't think it's much different in practice than using subroutines.

But even if I grant you that a high level of experience allows rapid scanning, there's still a barrier of translating to and from English (or whatever language you develop in) that seems to be higher due to the symbolic nature of the language. This is also true with certain procedural languages, but there's also been an enormous number of think pieces about how best to encode procedural programs so that they do naturally translate into natural language domains. I'd imagine that not being able to leverage those decades of discussion straightforwardly would be a loss.

Granted, this is also a problem with stuff like Haskell too, but the type system goes a long way to ameliorating this concern by classifying structures very rigidly.