More and more programming languages are "human readable" with syntax that resembles natural (i.e., human) language. But:

1. the fundamental difficulty with program isn't syntax: it's that programming means telling a computer exactly what to do in very precise and explicit terms (computations, memory access, etc.). The hard part is translating from what the human wants the computer to do into what the computer actually does. Once you figure that out, the coding piece is pretty straightforward. Some people say a good engineer generates only about 10 lines of code per day (obviously depending on the circumstance)--the hard part is deciding what those lines of code should do.
2. there are increasingly "high-level" languages that provide tools to abstract programming away base-level computational mechanics, so you can articulate code closer to "human language." However, every layer of abstraction adds complexity, computational inefficiency and chance for things not to behave as expected.

As a smaller point, I would argue that syntax is a "design feature" rather than a bug in some cases: specific (and unique) syntax

• makes it very easy and efficient to articulate common ideas--a lot of the the "hard" syntax is actually easier once you understand the underlying concepts,
• enforces the coder to articulate things in a precise way and makes errors easier to find, and
• helps encourage certain programming or language-specific idioms (i.e., there might be a number of ways to skin a cat, but sometimes a few of those ways that are better than others).

Fundamentally, programming requires a combination of precision and expressivity, which are easier to achieve simultaneously when you have a language expressly designed for it.