Whatever pleasantness may come from that or any other specific example is totally outweighed by the constant overhead of having to remember that there are N ways to do 1 thing. As a primary rule: the best programming grammar has the fewest such ambiguities, ideally zero.
Folks who really believe that program in lambda calculus.
In practice, syntax is the UI for a programming language. And just as with any UI, there's a bunch of tradeoffs between how easy the language is to use for a newbie (who knows nothing), how easy it is for casual user (who knows a few core constructs but has to lookup advanced functionality), how productive it is for an expert (who has a vast working memory of functionality), and how powerful it is (in terms of which constructs can even be represented). Different users will have different opinions on which tradeoffs are justified, largely depending on where they fall on this continuum.
On one side of the (practical) continuum, you have languages like COBOL, BASIC, PHP, and Hypercard, which are explicitly designed to seem familiar to people who know other non-programming technologies. On another, you have languages like Scheme, C, Go, and Java, which have a small set of broadly-applicable core concepts but require some verboseness to express lots of common patterns. And on the third, you have languages like C++ and Perl where experts can express very powerful programs without a whole lot of typing, but which can be rather impenetrable to people who haven't spent years mastering them.
I think this is a fair summary, but I also think that C++ and Perl can be pretty fairly judged as failures, due to, or in the ways that, you enumerate.
Put another way, it is not true that powerful languages must necessarily be impenetrable.
Put still another way, the amount of typing you do (within certain bounds of reason) is an almost totally irrelevant metric when judging a programming language.
This is a strong assertion with basically no backing, and all modern languages have some level of what you call ambiguity, so this isn't true in practice either.
