> I'd argue that I am not sure what kind of Python programmer is capable of learning things like comptime, borrow checking
One who previously wrote compiled languages ;-). It's not like you forget everything you know once you touch Python.
"... but would struggle with different looking syntax"
Although Python has some seriously PERLesque YOLO moments, like "#"*3 == "###". This is admittedly useful, but funny nonetheless.
We cannot deny that Python has some interesting solutions, such as the std lib namedtuple implementation. It's basically a code template & exec().
I don't think these are necessarily bad, but they're definitely funny.
More broadly this is the same argument as whether overloading `+` for strings is a bad idea or not, and the associated points, e.g. the fact that this makes it non-commutative - the same all applies to `*` as well, and to lists as much as strings. At least Python is consistent here.
Although there is one particular aspect that is IMO just bad design: the way `x += y` and `x = y` work. To remind, for lists these are not equivalent to `x = x + y` and `x = x y` - instead of creating a new list, they mutate the existing one in place, so all the references observe the change. This is very surprising and inconsistent with the same operators for numbers, or indeed for strings and tuples.