I might have a personality disorder, but yeah seeing most code/languages (stuff more substantial than the image here) makes me think there's something really wrong with them or me (or both) because I don't see how you get into that. Though I know in many cases it probably could've been written differently.
I like 1 language*, but it uses whitespace. I mean that's not the defining factor, but there aren't really different styles like this (though there is spaces for indentation depth, and I usually went with 1 space instead of the standard 2 so there is that).
*=it's somewhat niche and I never really started with it because... userspace reasons I guess is the best way to put it
I'm not sure if you guessed it or not because I've posted about it a few times in different contexts (thus why I try not to name drop now). I mean much of it is on me as well, change a few things about me and I might've done more with it.
If we're judging purely on readability then I think Allman probably has the edge, here. You can see at a glance where the encasement starts or ends in a vertical column on the far left. Of course, that's a moot point if the programmer's color coding is set up to where it is obvious.
If you must avoid code blocks, that means you can only use one line. I don't think you can be Turing complete if each function can only call one function. I don't even think you can get a context-free grammar, Chomsky normal form at least allows a variable to expand into two variables.
