[cb321]

I think the comparisons with Python are driven by how divisive it is to have leading whitespace be significant (though Haskell also has it without as much divisive discussion). There was some effort in Nim to have some of the standard library names mirror Python such as `strutils.startswith(str, "oops")`. That said that but for a few things like that, it is true that Pascal/Ada but made more terse are more an inspiration.

I know both languages well and personally I consider Nim to be more expressive and syntactically flexible than Python although it is admittedly a difficult thing to quantify (which "more"/your comment framing implies). As just a few examples to make the abstract more concrete, in Nim you can add user-defined operators. So, with https://github.com/SciNim/Measuremancer I can have let x = a +- b or let y = c ± d construct uncertain numbers and then say y/x to get a ratio with uncertainty propagated. Function call syntax is more flexible (and arises more often than uncertain value algebras), e.g. "f(x)", "x.f", "f x", and even "f: x" all work for any kind of routine call. The need to be specific about let/var constancy & types is slightly more verbose but adds semantic/correctness value (e.g. first use). Just generally Nim feels like "much more choice" than Python to me. In fact, the leading whitespace itself can usually be side-stepped with extra ()s which is not true in Python.

I am speculating, but I think what might make you feel Python is more expressive may come from ecosystem size/support effects such as "3 external libraries exist that do what I want and I only need to learn the names of how to invoke whichever". So, you get to "express" what you "want" with less effort (logic/coding), but that's not really PLang expressivity. Python is more dynamic, but dynamism is a different aspect and often leads to performance woes.