My point was that the notation should be optimized for the people using it, not for the technology used to typeset it. If the notation is suboptimal for the people then it can definitely be changed, but that's a different reason.

Note that some of these notational improvements may actually make it harder to typeset. For example, the second part of Knuth's paper "Two Notes on Notation" (https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9205211) introduced improved notation for the Stirling numbers "of the first kind" and "second kind", replacing easier-to-typeset but less informative notation like S(n,k). This notation has gained a good degree of acceptance, the paper won a writing award (https://www.maa.org/programs/maa-awards/writing-awards/paul-...), and another paper citing it calls this “The best thing that has happened to the Stirling numbers during their 400 years of chequered history” (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2974533?seq=1). (See also a talk of his on Notation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjbuyB4dQa0&list=PLoROMvodv4... for which someone has taken notes: https://crypto.stanford.edu/pbc/notes/misc/notation.html)

I think there are valid questions to be raised on which people to optimize for: whether the students encountering the notation for the first time, or the people who use it every day for years. In either case (to make my point again) it's a question about people, and not about the technology — a programming-like notation isn't better unless that's how the people who use it think (or want to think).