I've always had a kind of feeling that there is an upper bound on the rate at which a human can articulate an (original) idea/program/function in explicit enough terms for a computer to then run it.

Even to do this in the first place will always require a bare minimum understanding of the language of logic; basic control flow statements, variables and so on.

This is why I feel things like Bret Victor's idea of the 'MathKiller' (which as I understand the idea, is his general term for a hypothetical universally-intuitive computing environment which can model anything) are goals which we can only ever approach asymptotically - there will always be some uncharted waters where the only option available to those who want to explore further is simply to straight up write some code.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I feel improving the sophistication of the programming languages we use or changing the core paradigms upon which they are based will not help the situation; improving the sophistication of the tools we use to write them with will.