From the Nielson quote:
Although you could imagine a society where language was easy to learn because people communicated by pointing to words >and icons on large menus they carried about, humans have instead chosen to invest many years in mastering a rich and >complex language.
Which could be said to relate to my contrarian view about Python. Its hard as shit to learn, really. Four years into it, and I consider myself a rank novice. I am not extraordinarily bright, but certainly not stupid. Why would Python seem to want to avoid identifying itself as rich, and *complex*. As central to its claims toward having educational value. The best that it can be is no more complex than it needs to be to allow empowerment at a level of depth that - to someone like myself - is truly interesting. Python fools me into thinking this is largely so. But I am no expert on the alternatives. I wish it would seem to me less agains the grain to feel that the proper approach is promoting the learning of Python as an difficult, arduous but worthwhile effort. I think we set up people approaching it with other expectations for likely defeat. Art