Interesting - I had the complete opposite experience: Python was the first language I'd tried in a long time that just worked as I'd expected it to. After understanding the initial indenting rules, most of the code I tried could be written as pseudocode, which surprisingly worked the first time.
I was really impressed, most languages have so many stupid syntax requirements, which really shouldn't be be needed these days - everything compiles to the same assembler code so lets not pretend these languages are doing magical things.
The goal should be for programmers to get the logic across to the computer in the simplest form - and Python is pretty good for that (apart from zfil - seriously, can you get any more unintuitive)
> everything compiles to the same assembler code so lets not pretend these languages are doing magical things.
Nope. Some languages get compiled into binaries that are more performant with a smaller footprint. Some have a runtime that provides features like garbage collection and runtime evaluation. Others let you define macros that run at compile time, extending the syntax of the language. Some are graphical live environments. Others offer full high-level concurrency.
Languages have different syntaxes to support the features that their interpreters or compilers can convert into the code that can run on the target environment. This is not going to be the same across all languages, and there are tradeoffs.
I was really impressed, most languages have so many stupid syntax requirements, which really shouldn't be be needed these days - everything compiles to the same assembler code so lets not pretend these languages are doing magical things.
The goal should be for programmers to get the logic across to the computer in the simplest form - and Python is pretty good for that (apart from zfil - seriously, can you get any more unintuitive)