* Overloading:  Is this a reference to default values for arguments?  Or PEP 3124?  If the former, then I think that this is itself a great example of simplicity and clarity in python.<p>* Decorators:  I grant that they&#x27;re hard on a debugger; I wish that there were a slightly more sane way for the control flow to play out.  However, syntactically they&#x27;re super clear.<p>* Coroutines: What&#x27;s the problem here?  I prefer Twisted&#x27;s deferred model, but I have no problem with coroutines.<p>* Dynamic typing: I mean, if this is a religious issue, then I don&#x27;t want to offend, but seriously: especially for newcomers, the type system in Python is simple. And clear.<p>* Exceptions as part of control flow:  And why not?  Exceptions are a part of ordinary human logic.  Why do you regard them as unclear or complex?<p>* Boatload of basic types: I can do with a few fewer exposures of &quot;low level concepts&quot; in types (ie, int, float, double, decimal), but it&#x27;s not <i>that</i> bad.<p>* Deep class hierarchies: I&#x27;m not even sure what to say to this.  It seems like an objection to OOP generally.<p>* eval: I think we all agree that eval introduces opacity and complexity, but do you prefer it be removed?<p>* Massive standard library: Compared to other languages of a similar age, Python does an awfully good job at providing One Obvious Way to use the standard library to do what (and only what) you want.<p>* schism between 2 and 3: Hear hear.<p>* Eggs vs wheels: Yeah.  Fuck.<p>* pip vs setup vs easy_install: Yeah we get it.  Packaging is a problem.<p>Overall, I think Python is simple and clear.  If I had to pick an objection, none of the ones you raised makes my list.  I&#x27;ll probably go with the syntax for the &quot;type hints&quot; system.  And the GIL.  And the varying definitions of &quot;is&quot; across implementations.<p>But all in all, it&#x27;s pretty darn simple and clear.