Well, some journals have demanded proof assistant-level proofs of the work they present. This helps the rigor of the notation a lot since you can't cheat on the proof assistant, and if you confuse it, you are in trouble :)
The problem is that getting the notation right is actually quite hard. People write, to the best of their effort, to make the description succinct and understandable. But the notation is pliable, in the same way much mathematics is written: it isn't as rigorous as we would like.
Writing the same thing in regular prose is much much harder and there are many more ways things can go wrong.
So the state-of-the-art demands formal proof which can be verified by a machine. And it shows in the precision of the notation, which often leaves little to no room for wrong interpretation.
The problem is that getting the notation right is actually quite hard. People write, to the best of their effort, to make the description succinct and understandable. But the notation is pliable, in the same way much mathematics is written: it isn't as rigorous as we would like.
Writing the same thing in regular prose is much much harder and there are many more ways things can go wrong.
So the state-of-the-art demands formal proof which can be verified by a machine. And it shows in the precision of the notation, which often leaves little to no room for wrong interpretation.