You equate "teaching language" with "research language." You believe that a language with rigid syntax, static typing, and built-in OO would obscure the core id

You equate "teaching language" with "research language." You believe that a language with rigid syntax, static typing, and built-in OO would obscure the core ideas of computer science. Fine. You believe that. I'm sure you grasp that others, especially the list of people mentioned in the post, do not share your views. So, what we have here is that you have certain beliefs about what makes a language suitable for teaching and what makes a language suitable for industry, and on the basis of your views, you do not believe that the same language would be suitable for both purposes. I accept logically that your conclusions are compatible with your beliefs. I don't understand your last sentence. It seems to be some sort of axe grinding, as I certainly don't recall saying anything about industry programmers being ignorant or stupid. So all together, I can't think of anything new to add to this thread. I feel like a foil used for you to set up and demolish your own arguments.