Yes, let's move away from the standard syntax used to specify generics, which is used in virtually every widely-used programming language of the past 15-20 years I can think of, and instead redefine the most common syntax used for array indexing (oh, and make array indexing look like a function call).
This fixating on relatively inconsequential issues, while totally missing the forest for the trees, is a dangerous attribute I've found in a small subset of programmers.
I would say it's in a small subset of people who think like computer scientists rather than like software engineers. Computer scientists think about better syntax for computer languages. (I don't think that this is actually a better syntax, especially given the already-established conventions. But thinking about array indexing as a function call is, in my view, an interesting take.)
Software engineers, on the other hand, worry about how to efficiently write non-trivial programs. For that problem, this change doesn't move the needle whatsoever.
Most non-junior programmers think more like software engineers than like computer scientists. And even many who think like computer scientists can see the forest, not just the trees.
I've never seen a computer scientist put a lot of effort into syntax. The POPL people are more interested in type systems and semantics than they are in syntax.
This fixating on relatively inconsequential issues, while totally missing the forest for the trees, is a dangerous attribute I've found in a small subset of programmers.