> 
> This is what Guido van Rossum (Python's creator) wrote himself about
> Python's differences to Smalltalk:
> 'Smalltalk
> Perhaps the biggest difference between Python and Smalltalk is Python's more
> "mainstream" syntax, which
> gives it a leg up on programmer training. 
<rant>
Without wanting to rag on Guido or Python per se, this is pretty much
what annoys me most (on days ending with a $y) about a bunch of language
arguments. The idea that "oh, we have to use a syntax that people are
familiar with" compltely ignores the fact that it is the _semantics_
that matter in the usefulness and usability of a language.

Actor (from Whitewater, back in early 90's) took this viewpoint, but
used Pascal syntax. C++ made the same argument - and look what they
ended up with :-P . Java seems to have done it again. I fear that the
problem is that once you start using the syntax from an old language you
end up thinking in the manner of that language and let the exciting new
stuff slip from your grasp. Write a langauge that uses the familiar old
comfortable FORTRAN sysntax and I doubt you will end up with a good OOP
system. Actually, I doubt you will end up with a good _anything_.

Perhaps even worse, people coming to _learn_ this new system will see
that familiar syntax and stop thinking. You only have to read a bunch of
java/C++ code to see that effect. Sadly of course, a new syntax doesn't
always break peoples mental models and make them build a new one. I see
so much C written in Smalltalk that it's not funny. And I'm not counting
the deliberately C-like style of the VM code.
</rant>

tim