Yeah, for example I would be repulsed by a language that uses something like "x = 1" as a comparator instead of "x == 1".

It's sort of like one of those keyboards where the semicolon key is elsewhere or the PgDn button is bigger.

That makes them look like glorified cybernetic factory workers

On the other hand, spending most of your time learning new syntax as opposed to actually solving creative problems makes one more like a glorified factory worker.

Learning syntax is a non problem

...that's generally a waste of time.

Once people graduate from the "I'm going to learn ALL the things because it's fun and I got surplus brainpower", they usually discover that there are lots and lots of problems out there that require plenty of brainpower and people will actually pay you for solving. It's somewhat silly to allocate your mental effort to things that get you nothing but intellectual gratification when you can allocate it to things that get you intellectual gratification and monetary compensation that will let you do many things you otherwise can't.

Exactly. I can learn syntax if it's going to pay me back for the effort - if it's going to enable me to avoid bugs, or to solve problems I couldn't, or to be more productive, or to get or keep a job.

Learning syntax that isn't going to pay me back? I don't have time for that.

It takes half an hour to learn syntax

It takes a lot longer to learn syntax to the point where I don't have to think about it, so that I can spend my time thinking about the problem instead.

Having to think about the syntax is like not being a touch typist. Sure, I can still press the right keys, but I have to think about doing so, which slows me down and takes my thinking off of what I'm trying to say.

But does coding take more time typing rather than thinking?

You've answered your own question about why programmers don't like new syntax. Because most (interesting) coding takes more time thinking than typing, syntax is only a cost, never a benefit. If your language has familiar syntax, then they don't have to pay that cost. If it makes them learn new syntax, it better provide other benefits like access to a new platform, a job that pays much better, or eliminating a large class of bugs. And if two languages both offer that same benefit (like Erlang vs. Elixir, Matlab vs. Python, even Python/Ruby vs. Node.js) programmers will gravitate toward the one that doesn't make them learn new syntax.

People think haskell's or lisp's syntax is bad, but they bring awesome power to solve problems. They are the best languages.

(Something (a (small (set (of)) (((programmers have (been claiming) for) decades)) and yet) somehow they never, ever, take) off.))) ((I wonder) (why) that is))))?

The kind of problems that they help with are actually fairly rare, while their disadvantages are expensive. Basically the syntax sucks and all the really useful bits are now in all the other languages any way.