While something may be well understood in an academic sense doesn't mean that the application of that understanding to implementation humans will take a liking to is well understood.

If you look at the programming language landscape I think one wouldn't be unreasonable in pointing out that very little is understood in terms of how you go from good ideas to widely adopted language.

What affects reality is important.

> doesn't mean that the application of that understanding to implementation humans will take a liking to is well understood.

I really like how ML implements it, does that make me somehow less human?

What you like or don't like isn't really the point. The point is that it isn't unimportant when judging how "good" a language is to take into account how many people are willing to use it. It is hard to argue that a language is "good" when a negligible fraction of developers are willing to use it.

As Alan Kay said, the industry is a pop culture, driven by marketing not science. I'm still going to argue for good ideas though.

If one is to come up with an excuse for not understanding people, one should pick something that at least sounds plausible.