I agree. This isn't a [citation needed] moment, anyway, because it's mostly our subjective opinions on the structure. While the core symbolic system is effective in many ways, I hardly imagine it's ideal. It evolved over the years out of the mathematical discourse, and is very organic and piecemeal. There are ambiguities and inconsistencies, unnecessary redundancies and linguistic inefficiencies. I hardly imagine that anyone commonly steeped in symbolic math thinks that the current system is perfectly ideal, even if they find it generally effective.

I find that linear algebra is particularly bad with having too many ways to represent objects and operations, along with many that overlap with algebraic symbols and lead to confusion. It also doesn't help that there are forty billion different ways to represent the derivative of a function, many of which overlap ambiguously with other operations and symbols. I remember having a single semester where multivariate calculus used f' to mean a derivative, modern physics used f' to mean the position of f after a time interval, and linear algebra used f' to mean a matrix transformation of f. There's also no easy way to represent the antiderivative of f other than with F, which looks like f is a vector/scalar and F is a matrix. Add to that that many professors have their own notational preferences, and it's a royal mess.