<i>The stark modern minimalism of the language causes the meaning of code to float on the syntax like a feather on water.</i><p>I think Python is dandy.  I will be starting a new project on it, actually.  But "stark" and "modern" are relative.  While there's a lot of very pretty Python that reads like pseudocode, there's also a bit of Python that goes down the same sinful path as C header files or Perl in the use of arcane symbols.  There's no reason why things like meta-programming have to look like anything different from plain old programming.<p>That said, I think Python hits a very attractive middle ground.  There is <i>just enough</i> syntax to fit the most basic cultural expectations of technical people as well as a large number of programmers.  That, if you think about it, is a stunning achievement in human-interface design.  (Read that straight-up!)<p>(And to be fair: Smalltalk - even more minimal, but ignores lots of important cultural expectations.  Lisp - even more minimal and just about everything, no matter how meta, looks like normal Lisp.  But on the downside, everything looks like normal Lisp.)