> You are just arguing that a simple language is good for beginners, and I agree with that. No, I am not. As you must surely know, "simple" is not a well-defi

> You are just arguing that a simple language is good for beginners, and I agree with that. No, I am not. As you must surely know, "simple" is not a well-defined concept. Forth is a simpler language than Python. Yet I am certainly not saying it's as good a language for beginners. I'm saying that languages can be treated as a user interface, and improved based on feedback with the target audience. Python - unlike most other languages - incorporated insights from developing the ABC language as a teaching language for non-programmers. Your "We want a beginner language" description is too broad as it also describes ABC, without including discussion of why Python succeeded where ABC did not. > Ruby is superior in the simple beginner case If you are basing things on your intuition and personal experience, then my intuition and experience says otherwise. That's why these arguments are rather pointless. > One small but significant feature Ruby provides Yes, I get it - you like Ruby. But shrug some people like Fords while others prefer a Chevy. And still my point is that Python explicitly incorporates design elements based on experience from teaching non-programmers to program. If it's part of Ruby, it's much less of an emphasis. That's nothing at all to do with a language feature, which was your focus earlier.