Dr. No vs. anonymous functions

You may remember the first James Bond movie where the hero gets into contaminated areas and thus gets the decontamination treat. Now, this doesn't just happen but is shown in quite some details. As if to show off 'hey, look, we know all this stuff' instead of simply assuming it.

Now there is a similar thing with the syntax of anonymous functions. In some languages it is like function (x) return 2 * x; end while others say the same as \x{2 * x}. The shorter syntax stand less in the way and makes it possible to write, say, list.filter (\x{x.city == quest}).map (\x{x.zipcode}) in one line, while the former notation will cause massive keyword clutter hiding the actual operations.

There is a case in that the longer syntax may have been judiciously chosen to make clear that the use of anonymous functions (plus closures) is not encouraged in this language. I don't assume that it is a case of show-off, as in Cobol which needs to make clear that it can DISPLAY or COMPUTE something, as if this wasn't to be expected of a computer language. But the question remains, whether, in any specific language the form of anonymous functions wasn't just chosen because of its similarity to named functions. In named functions this is no big deal as their opening has a line for itself anyway. Anonymous functions need to be unobtrusive to be really useful, while the more verbose forms make many uses unwieldy. The question is whether the language designers really wanted to discourage that use or whether they didn't think quite that far in that direction, not having actively used functional style themselves.