I hate when people say "python is a simple language" when having this opinion requires ignoring everything about how python is designed (more like patched together), and requires using some non-standard definition of "simple".
in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks, parsing a structured text file, input and output into various data formats, and the tools to build upon your work as it gets more complex.
I'm curious to know what your definition of simple is?
I assume this should read "presents* a simple interface..."?
For me, “simple” needs to be distinguished from “familiar”. Most of the time, people think whatever is familiar is simple, but that just makes the word “simple” less useful. The von Neumann style of programming introduces tremendous complexity.
I would probably agree that C is simple in design. I’m not sure, because I’m not extremely proficient in it, but I think I agree. Although it has tons of complexities in practical use… So perhaps it’s easier to speak of (and compare) the simplicity of higher-level languages.
This is the very premise that I question. Simple in comparison to what? Javascript? I'd actually put python and javascript more or less in the same ballpark of complexity (neither of these are simple languages).
Look carefully at the design of something like Clojure (which has constraints, eg.: around java interop, of a sort that python did not have), and it's hard to unsee all of core python's accidental complexity.