> I think English is a terrible shitpile of grammar and syntax

Spoken languages are like programming languages, there are the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.

> the notion that it lacks nuance to describe the intricacies of text rendering

I took this to mean that any non-domain-specific language may be bad at describing that domain, e.g. why physicists, mathematicians, chemists, etc. have a common symbology for the discipline, or why programming languages exist. i.e., not so much that English is uniquely bad among written human language for conveying these topics, but just that any non-specialized language may be.

Though, I think the author did a fair job, but I lack the domain experience to guess at where the misconceptions might lie.

> I'm very impressed that anyone who speaks another language natively can get good at it.

From my completely anecdotal observations, native speakers are the worst at English. They struggle with homophones, prepositions, tenses, confuse meanings of words, apostrophes and I could go on and on.

English grammar is easier to learn by reading and writing than speaking, what most native speakers do.

Its/it's, they/their/they're, who's/whose, prepositions like a lot, a while and confused words like definitely and defiantly are the first that come to mind. See if you are better than a foreigner.

As a native english speaker, i did try to learn german but eventually gave up. A language sprinkled with "learn by wrote" gender prefixes for every item is just not worth learning. I did have an issue with the numbers being back to front once you get to the unit value but then someone pointed out english does that too for the values 13-19... so there ya go.