I think that's putting the cart before the horse. I think it wouldn't matter which architecture you choose as there will always be deep performance considerations that must be understood in order to write efficient software.
Otherwise your statement might amount down to "I hope there is an ISA that intentionally wastes performance and energy in deference to human standards of beauty."
It's why the annals of expertise rarely makes for good dinner table conversation.
x86 has a parity flag. It only takes the parity of the lowest 8 bits though. Why is it there? Because it was in the 8086 because it was in the 8080 because it was in the 8008 because Intel was trying to win a contract for the Datapoint 2200.
Sometimes the short instruction variant is correct, but not if it makes a single instruction break down into many uops as the microcode is 1000x slower.
Oh, but you need to use those longer variants without extra uops to align functions to cache boundaries because they perform better than NOP.
Floats and SIMD are a mess with x87, AMX (with incompatible variants), SSE1-4 (with incompatible variants), AVX, AVX2, and AVX512 (with incompatible variants) among others.
The segment and offset was off dealing with memory is painful.
What about the weird rules about which registers are reserved for multiply and divide? Half the “general purpose” registers are actually locked in at the ISA level.
Now APX is coming up and you get to choose between shorter instructions with 16 registers and 2 registers syntax or long instructions with 32 registers ands 3 registers instructions.
And this just scratches the surface.
RISCV is better in every way. The instruction density is significantly higher. The instructions are more simple and easier to understand while being just as powerful. Optimizing compilers are easier to write because there’s generally just one way to do things and is guaranteed to be optimized.
Otherwise your statement might amount down to "I hope there is an ISA that intentionally wastes performance and energy in deference to human standards of beauty."
It's why the annals of expertise rarely makes for good dinner table conversation.