Why don't they fit your brain? I wonder if the author ever tried statically typed languages.
> I would like for Python 4 to get inspired by Racket and introduce "dialects".
> Having repeat as a keyword as is available in TygerJython and Reeborg's World for the construct repeat nb_steps:. It might perhaps be also useful to have repeat forever: as equivalent to Python's while True: . [Other possible uses of this keyword are described here.]
I don't see how this would be beneficial. You're basically proposing that beginners learn something that is literally not Python - then when they switch to the "main" dialect, they have to re-learn basic things all over again.
Lisps have this neat functionality where you get to basically define your own syntax, and that's really useful in a small set of cases (i.e macros in Racket, super duper useful, would wish C macros were as clean as Racket macros). But Python simply does not fit this mold. It wouldn't do Python any good to have a macro system - and it definitely wouldn't do it good if it has 4 different sub-languages, each of which have it's own syntax and warts.
Stroustrup said "Within C++, there is a much smaller and clearer language struggling to get out." The Python the author is describing is to me, even worse than C++ in terms of complexity.