What Araq says is very fair in practice, but maybe requires clarification in theory. Quoting rule complexity is not intrinsic to the command language problem (which might almost be defined as "everything is a string literal but without quotes unless they are 'necessary', whatever that means"). At least it doesn't/didn't need to be _quite_ so error prone.
E.g., the admittedly obscure [Plan9 rc shell](http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/rc) ([PDF](https://www.scs.stanford.edu/nyu/04fa/sched/readings/rc.pdf)) which has [a Unix port](https://github.com/rakitzis/rc) (dating back to the early 90s) made simple quoting a priority and came up with **_much simpler_** rules than Bourne/Korn/Zsh/Bash tradition (perhaps `command.com`, too). Just single quote (and also backslash escapes). It is very true that what becomes popular seems to be hairy messes. In this and many things. :-) Also, Python just has enough other syntax going on to require quoting of string literals even if semantically things are all `PyObject` underneath. There is still a lot of variety of single-, double-, triple-, r-string, f-string, u-string, b-string and maybe I'm missing one. That's 3*5=15 ways to spell a string literal (including unqualified). So, I wouldn't say Python fully escaped "quoting hell". :-) { I think Nim does better here by just being more flexible. } @Zoom \- I think we also don't disagree, but to clarify I _almost_ qualified that StackOverflow bit with "but I'm not sure I'd call that 'learning'". Maybe. Depends on what you mean by "education", "depth of knowledge", etc. Programming by just looking up answers/trial and error is a real thing, esp. for beginners, though - enough to be a sales pitch. I fully support/reiterate "no suggestion as set in stone" and also recommend @cagyul (or anyone) muster the _most specific_ questions they can, in other threads, and with the _most problem context_ possible. Abstract questions have only abstract answers which are often unsatisfying for beginners. One reason [Rosetta Code](http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code) can be nice is its "fully worked out" nature, but the problems/scope are often a bit more limited than Sedgewick/algo books/etc.
