At first glance, this is a strange question. However, I think it's a very revealing question because it demonstrates a fundamental misconception that people have about the way programming 'languages' work.

Consider this, it may give you an epiphany:

Whenever you read code in *any* programming language, it is only a *conjured-up side-effect* that the little symbols on the screen have any similarity whatsoever with 'human language'.

Consider that and let it sink in for a bit...

Did it sink in?

Still pondering that? If you get the point, then you realize that ...

print 'Hello';
print "Hello";
[download]

... is the same thing as ...

qublloogg @xux_nono_interpo@Hello@xux_nono_interpo@@uxx@
qublloogg @xux_ouio_interpo@Hello@xux_ouio_interpo@@uxx@
[download]

both are 'isomorphic', one just happens to be easier for some people to understand, read, and memorize than the other. (personal preference dictates what is 'easier' more than *anything else*!!) If someone tells you that programming 'language' X is 'more or less forgiving' (aka better, superior, smarter) than language Y, just nod your head and politely smile ... knowing that it is all a conjurer's trick.

This is why JAPH's and Obfuscation contests are so fascinating. This is why JAPH's and Obfuscation works in the first place. This is why there will always be 'new' programming languages. (or 'improvements' on existing ones). This is why people can be fooled by 'bots' into thinking they are talking to a human.

It is only a *conjured-up side-effect* that the little symbols on the screen have any correlation whatsoever with what you understand as 'human hanguage'. Understand that a 'programming language' does not work like 'human language' ... let that concept sink in.