That’s a shame because you’re missing that these sigils actually have meaning there, because the semantics of the language are completely different: Python is statements-based with very limited scoping (global and function), Rust is expression based with block scoping.
As a result, blocks (paired braces) are a way to pack multiple statements into an expression e.g.
let v = {
let a = thing1();
let b = thing2();
thing3(a, b)
};
And not aliasing end-of-line to end-of-statement is relevant to rust being expression oriented, it’s very common for expressions to span multiple lines, in that case Python requires either wrapping the entire thing in parenthesis or escaping the EOL with `\`.
Could you find other ways to do this? Sure, but then you have to make other tradeoffs e.g. wrap everything in matching symbols à la lisp, or make statements into special cases à la Haskell.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Unfortunately, we still live in an era where humans have to adapt to technology rather than the other way around. From my perspective, this is particularly true for programming.
For me, Python is a good (though not ideal) mix of simple syntax and power. The language is characterized by low redundancy, meaning it uses fewer unnecessary characters like semicolons or curly braces to mark the end of a line. If a human can recognize the end of a line without special characters, then the compiler should be able to as well.
As someone with ADHD, I find it particularly difficult not to get distracted by these and other superfluous details. These small distractions add up and can become very burdensome. Interestingly, I found it easier to program in Assembler and Modula than in languages like C++ (MSVC), PHP, or JavaScript – at least as long as the projects were small.
Even a brief look at Rust’s syntax causes me almost physical discomfort, no matter how great, powerful, and useful the language may be.
For this reason, I almost exclusively use the terminal for emails, calendar, and programming, even though complex GUIs can simplify some tasks.
Although Python is not perfect in terms of syntax, it offers a good balance. Perhaps one day, before the perfect programming language exists, we will be able to use AI and ML to explain to the computer what a program should do with simple language (better than ChatGPT right now), just like Captain Picard. In fantasy, a few letters, punctuation marks, and some grammar is all that is needed. This may lead to inaccuracies in human-to-human communication, but that does not mean the same problems must occur in communication with an intelligent compiler.
Making syntax as “human-readable” as possible should always be the highest priority. We could unlock so much potential this way.
Many people here argue that braces do provide some structure that helps in understanding and navigating the program. Python files over 100 lines with a lot of if-statements become syntactically unreadable.
So taking them away does not help.
Generally, minimalism (except for the Lisp-style one) is not always good. Python is called executable pseudo-code. Do academics use it to specify algorithms?
No, most still use some form of Pascal/Algol style syntax, which conveys the meaning much better.