Yes, sure, as long as you recognize that as a very subjective determination.
From the statistician's non-programmer POV the syntax of R or some other language are similarly opaque. Learning one vs. another will present similar investments in time. From their perspective, R does not make things more difficult, and the fact that it's more of the lingua franca within the field has it's own benefits.
The people I see complain about R are usually people that learned a different general purpose language first and find that when work requires data analysis they much prefer the GPL for working through the non-analytical portions if their work. (Especially with python where pandas and numpy have made less specialized tasks much easier)
t.test(x, y = NULL, alternative = c("two.sided", "less", "greater"), mu = 0, paired = FALSE, var.equal = FALSE, conf.level = 0.95, …)
A statistician opens the vignette and already knows what all of these variables represent mathematically, and can begin producing analysis immediately.
Heck, my background before using R was python and SPSS and I still prefer R for precisely the example you gave: fine-grained control built in as above, specifying how to handle missing values etc.
I end up using python for large scale data prep.
Unless the thing that makes the language difficult is your expecations. In that case, offering you an alternative mental model that helps you make better decisions when using the language does get you closer to solving your problem.
The beautiful it is to be used interactively, it really takes a lot of practice to write reliable code that doesn't abort with some error now and then.