I have a little bit of skepticism about the pattern matching syntax, for similar reasons to those Larry expresses, and that Steve Dower mentioned on Discourse.

Basically, I agree matching/destructuring is a powerful idea.  But I also wonder how much genuinely better it is than a library that does not require a language change.  For example, I could create a library to allow this:

m = Matcher(arbitrary_expression)
if m.case("StringNode(s)"):
elif m.case("[a, 5, 6, b]"):
elif m.case("PairNone(a, b)"):
    a, b = m.values
    process_pair(a, b)
elif m.case("DictNode"):
    foo = {key, process_node(child_node) for key, child_node in m.values.items()}

I don't disagree that the pattern mini-language looks nice as syntax.  But there's nothing about that mini-language that couldn't be put in a library (with the caveat that patterns would need to be quoted in some way).

The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.