">There is a huge number of combinations possible, especially once keywords come into play. I don't think that's the limitation." The mathematical limitation s

">There is a huge number of combinations possible, especially once keywords come into play. I don't think that's the limitation." The mathematical limitation still remains even if you switch from 1-character symbols like '+' to verbose words like "plus()". You can attempt to invent a new programming language using longer keywords but you'll still run into contradictions of expressing concepts because there's always an implicit runtime assumption behind any syntax that hides the raw manipulation of 0s and 1s. If you didn't hide such assumptions (i.e. "abstractions"), then that means the 0s & 1s and NAND gates would be explicitly visible to the programmer at the syntax layer and that's unusable for non-trivial programs. There's a reason why no credible computer science paper[0] has claimed to have invented the One Programming Language that can cover the full spectrum of tasks for all situations. It's not because computer scientists with PhDs over the last 50 years are collectively dumb. It's because it's not mathematically possible. [0] e.g. one can search academic archives: https://arxiv.org/archive/cs https://arxiv.org/archive/cs