As you might guess from my original post, I'm a Lisp apologist. I like the syntax and I can make an argument for Lisp [1] that sounds a lot like the argument you make here for APL. From what you say and from what I've read, I suspect APL is another language like Lisp (and Smalltalk, Forth, and Tcl). These are all languages derive a great deal of elegance and coherence from a pure approach to syntax and design, and all are seductive in their way to people that have taken on the effort to learn how they work.
The problem is that this doesn't matter enough to overcome the incumbency bias in favor of more traditional languages.
> but your JS or C# code looks as alien if not more alien to an non-programmer as does APL to you.
It would be convenient for APL if this were true, but the reality is that it's not.
I learned Logo and Basic when I was eight. My kids learned JS/Python around the same age. This is a common experience. It's just not that hard to learn basic imperative programming in an infix language.