Sure, there might be explanations elsewhere, just like there are evangelists for Lisp ... or Perl 6. And with similar arguments.
Take http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html from 2002 as an example:
> I did try to introduce Lisp to Google. Having had some experience selling Lisp at JPL I got all my ducks in a row, had a cool demo going, showed it to all the other members of the ads team, and had them all convinced that this was a good idea. The only thing left was to get approval from the VP of engineering. The conversation went something like this:
Me: I'd like to talk to you about something...
Him: Let me guess - you want to use Smalltalk.
Me: Er, no...
Him: Lisp?
Me: Right.
Him: No way.
I ended up putting this essay into the pile of other advocacy-for-language-X pieces I've read, with no interest in reading other blog postings.
But I did anyway. https://medium.com/@richardeng/how-does-python-make-thinking... ("Pythonistas will also tell you that Python’s syntax reads like English"). 1) It's a strawman argument, as I'm a Pythonista and I don't say that, and 2) AppleScript is more English-like than Smalltalk, so if "English-like" were really a goal, that's more like what we should be using.
https://levelup.gitconnected.com/python-vs-pharo-df47599a8ed... ("Python vs Pharo") asserts that Pharo is easier to learn than Python. However, it provides no empirical evidence that the chosen metrics are appropriate. The ABC language, which was a strong influence on Python, show how empirical tests can be done.
As an example from Python, a high school teacher presented at a Python conference almost 20 years ago. The AP test at that time used C++ or Java - I can't remember which. He found it was easier to teach Python first, then C++ or Java, than to do everything in C++ or Java. While this is anecdotal evidence, it's still more substantial than an argument based on being able to fit the syntax on a post card. (If that were important, use Lisp, Forth, or APL, all of which have simpler syntax.)
And so on.