In my opinion expressiveness doesn't exist objectively. With that motivation for language design (achieving the expressiveness of English), I'm afraid you're ru

In my opinion expressiveness doesn't exist objectively. With that motivation for language design (achieving the expressiveness of English), I'm afraid you're running to a self-centered opinion; it is expressive only for those who have learned it since childs. The hierarchy of programming languages derives from the fact that expanding those languages is a lot of work (reimplementing the parser), in comparison with a natural one (metaphors, or neologisms). That's why, I think, a more general language (LISP, Smalltalk) is better. They don't give you expressiveness, which is only given by semantics, but at least they don't narrow those semantics. In comparison, English is a very ambiguous language which seems more expressive because it's semantics are huge. Which leads to the problem that, even if you built an artificial brain, you'd have to teach that brain ontology. Ultimately, the problem's root is not found within programming languages, but is an inertia to extend those which exist.