PL syntax theorizing

I'd just like to theorize for a moment.

1. What is the point of having 3 or 4 different braces in your language? In my opinion, if you have to use so much different symbols, your grammar is shit and you must be ashamed. The only valid reason I see for it is to differentiate between literals of different collection types (lists, arrays, dicts, sets etc). However, there is simply no reason to differentiate between operator() for functions and operator[] for collections. Just assume that function cannot be indexed and collection cannot be called.

2. Why can't we have multiword function names? Does getElementsByClassName(x) really more readable than ``get elements by class name (x)''? Also, how come so many languages still use case-sensitive identifiers? I thought case sensitivity was an artifact of olden days where you could not spare computational resources to normalize case of your identifiers. It is an antipattern and it gives you nothing whatsoever. Why keep it, C? Python? Javascript? Haskell? OCaml? (OK Haskell differentiating on first letter is cool, but keeping track of case of the remaining letters is fucking silly)

>>27
The thing is, even if you put parentheses around arguments, you still have to separate them with spaces. And if there are spaces in the function name and between the arguments, they get visually confusing. The current scheme is more function-centric: make the function tight and monolith, and the arguments shall cluster behind it loosely. See, in functional programming functions should be the elite, and all the rest should be their servants.