Absolutely. These days, I am exploring a concatenative language, Factor. I feel like if there ever was a consistent syntactic pattern in this language, then it would make sense to define it as a new word, rather than have a system which would repeatedly suggest it based on partial match.

And that's what I am alluding to with my entropy comment. Factor's syntax has extremely high entropy (if we look at words as tokens), or rather, it is designed to allow extremely high entropy of code.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to preference, what the tools should be doing for us programmers? Should the program source code (language syntax) have low entropy, and the tools should exploit that when we write the code (as Copilot does), or should we strive for as high entropy of the source code as possible, and have the tools explain the context for us (for example, in Factor, it would be what the expected types on the stack are in the certain place in the code, etc.)? I am in favor of the 2nd approach, I think that is going to be more productive.

I agree, programs are and will always remain first for humans to read, which means they have to follow the shape of thought and not the other way around.