> Given this dependency on the "reputation" of "pythonic syntax", whom do you accept as "recommenders" for reputation? What constitutes a "good reputation" to your mind?
Do you actually disagree with me about the reputation of different language syntaxes? I don't have a specific list of influences, just a general impression from e.g. HN-like discussion sites, programming meetups, work colleagues...
> Do the importance of project, or perhaps durability of code have any value in this reputation?
No - we're talking solely about syntax.
> Is it enough that millions of other people use different tools? Literally billions of other people speak and write a language that does not have the "Englishonic" properties of English, for example. Some of these languages have a notation that is superior to English. [see GB Shaw on English notation]
I see your last two sentences as the demonstration that the answer to your question is "no". A language may become very popular despite having a very poor syntax, and even clear improvements to syntax are often not adopted.
> You say quite clearly in another comment that "C" is not a good language, despite its importance as a language and its influence on several other important, long-serving programming languages. I will just cite the TIOBE index as something tangible; if imperfect, it is at least not a mysterious allusion.
Sure, and I'm aware that this is a controversial view. I think few would defend C's syntax; rather they tend to claim that it has good performance or is close-to-the-machine (views that I disagree with, but would acknowledge the popularity of, and be prepared to argue my case against).
> Take one of these languages. Javascript, for example, is a very successful language. Apart from the "ecosystems" of languages, I assume you accept that the notation of Javascript is -- by any measure other than aspersions -- a successful notation system.
I don't accept that a language being popular means it has good syntax, if that's what you're saying.