The problem, restated, is the following: any design of a system, be it electronic, mechanical, computational or of some other nature, requires a language. The language as such is purely a social medium, i.e. it serves human understanding, although it holds no value with regards to the end product. Just think about it for a moment: you don't sit to think about the state of any particular transistor while you're using your computer -- in fact, you don't know anything about *any* particular transistor. The same holds with computer programs: the nature of the machine code itself can be completely opaque and the program is still going to work -- which incidentally is also what makes the whole discussion of "open source" moot.

Now, from this follows that the "proper" language used to describe a system is only incidental to the technical aspects of said system, and say, its power of expression, is in fact for the most part a function of the culture it inhabits. That is why, say, Rust is a "good" language; not because its compiler-enforced correctness is a necessary feature of programming languages -- programming languages work fine without such features; but because that's how you get a dumb AI to write correct computer programs. And yes, I know that Rust was designed before LLMs were a thing; Haskell was designed before Rust was a thing; and higher-order logics were conceived before Haskell was a thing; and what of that? The point is: when you over-rely on mechanical means to design systems, the mechanical means will become a sunken cost, so soon enough you'll have no other means to do such things.