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)

>>1
1. You are right. Even in Racket, I use only the round braces. Clojure is fucking non-Lisp piece of shit, by the way, because of its ugly and unusable parenthetical zoo.
2. Already available. E.g. in Racket you can name your function |hax anus|.
You're right about case sensitivity though. It's one of the biggest things I hate about Linux. And you're right about Haskell too. I wish Racket was case-insensitive. It's probably possible to do with some renaming transformers, too.