I read your original question, your question here on Meta, and the comment chain on Robert Harvey's answer. After reading everything, I casted a reopen vote on your question.
It's been a while since we've visited a discussion of history questions and their topicality, but I still agree with the answers presented in the last discussion, and I really don't see a reason to reopen the topicality discussion, since we've had plenty of luck with history questions - they tend to produce well researched answers that bring together individual knowledge and information from multiple sources in a way that is very searchable. All of those are positives.
Also, this isn't the only site to have a solid set of questions about the history of their field. Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, and Statistics all do it well, too.
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't improvements that can't be made to the question. My biggest problem after reading everything is that it doesn't actually answer the question you are interested in. But that still doesn't mean that it's not a good question.
You left a comment on Robert's answer that states you are interested in language design. This information is not presented in your original question at all. It may not be intuitive, but Stack Exchange is not about you getting an answer to your question, but about providing a repository of questions and answers for other people (I think there is some discussion on Meta Stack Exchange about this, but I'm not able to find it right now). This question isn't that useful for someone else who is designing a language and wondering if they should use a caret for XOR or exponentiation - they would have to interpret the history in their own way.
I also don't think that this is the best community to ask language design questions on. We do have some people with this background here - Eric Lippert comes to mind. However, consider the intended audience of this community: professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle who care about creating, delivering, and maintaining software responsibly (or, in simpler terms, practitioners of software engineering or software craftsmanship). Considering that they also accept history questions, the community at Computer Science may be better suited to answering questions about programming language design - traditionally, programming language theory is a branch of computer science. However, just because it's on-topic there doesn't mean it is off-topic here. I do think that wording it more about your design of a programming language rather than a history question may have been better here, since as people who care about creating and maintaining software, we do have a stake in languages that are easy to use and maintainable.
All in all, I've reopened the question. I don't see any reason to keep it closed. There's also no discussion regarding removing history from this site's scope, as long as it's related to the history of software engineering or software craftsmanship.