You can probably make the opposite case, as Dijkstra did in his piece of "On the foolishness of "natural language programming".
"A short look at the history of mathematics shows how justified this challenge is. Greek mathematics got stuck because it remained a verbal, pictorial activity, Moslem "algebra", after a timid attempt at symbolism, died when it returned to the rhetoric style, and the modern civilized world could only emerge —for better or for worse— when Western Europe could free itself from the fetters of medieval scholasticism —a vain attempt at verbal precision!— thanks to the carefully, or at least consciously designed formal symbolisms that we owe to people like Vieta, Descartes, Leibniz, and (later) Boole."
Computers, as machines, derive their power exactly by what they prohibit. They provide interfaces narrow enough, like modern mathematics, that make the expression of a whole lot of nonsense impossible which is what enables the automation of tasks in a correct manner. Going back to some sort of alchemy where you have to beg the computer with incantations to do things that may or may not be correct is actually going backwards in history. The fact that people think expressing themselves in a programming language as a burden, when the limitations are exactly what give it its power, says more about modern programming as a practice than anything else. As he jokes in the piece someone being glad they don't "need to" write SQL any more is like someone saying they avoided mathematical notation for the sake of clarity.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...