This is needless fearmongering. F* looks a lot like F# code with semantics you should be familiar with if you've worked with other proof oriented languages. The website design is dated is all. The book gives exactly what the OP wants in the introductory chapter.
Fearmonger? Me? Well I never.
Also
> if you've worked with other proof oriented languages.
That's doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Fearmonger is a little heavy handed but the comparison to Dwarf Fortress is probably too strong.
I don't find F* syntax anymore intimidating than Haskell, Scala, Mercury, Prolog, etc. aka the hard languages. I love Ruby and I didn't find it intuitive when I first began learning it (specifically, the block/lambda passing mechanism).
Meanwhile I'm sure there's people out there baffled that anyone finds dwarf fortress challenging to get into.
I'm old enough that I've had the pleasure of handholding software engineers through their first anonymous function usage. Effect system, refinement types, totality checker? The best I get is blank stares before they go back to C# and JavaScript. These days I'm just glad they tolerate linq expressions and typescript.
It matters where you're standing for what feels incomprehensible. But then again, you can say the same thing about dwarf fortress.
> These days I'm just glad they tolerate linq expressions and typescript
If it walks like a duck, farts like a dog, and flies like a fish - it's Java$cript.
TypeScript is used by the pious - they think it will bring them closer to God.
> dwarf fortresses that prove code with math
And then there's you guys.
Gattir allar,
aþr gangi fram,
vm scoðaz scyli,
vm scygnaz scyli;
þviat ouist er at vita,
hvar ovinir sitia
a fleti fyr