Haskell has the choice of both indentation based and brackets for things like do blocks, but most people use indentation based cause it’s the norm and looks cleaner

White space sensitive languages are evil.

Per the Linux kernel coding style:

Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to be 3.

Whatever your place defines as a standard. I’ve seen ugly code in C, JavaScript, Java, etc., that uses them all over the place because they’re not mandatory.

If you don’t have consistent indenting, your code looks like copy/paste from several sources; but if you do have consistent indenting, then the indenting of Python is a non-issue.

Yes

I’m rather partial to five myself but only when I’m feeling fancy.

and that indentation defaults in decent editors are usually language dependent. I’m not familiar with these editors, but… come on - if they use one default for all files, OP should use a better tool.

Yes, but I don’t normally program in python, so I never did. When I had to, I never thought of changing it (it wasn’t for long anyways and was less of a thought out decision to do programming in vim)

Key point being, similar to some random languages. JS and Python Syntax don’t fit a typed and compiled language at all.

Pretty syntax would probably be something like C, where not every single character already widely reserved for specific keywords (like !, ', =) is reused in completely random ways.

From the first syntax examples on Wikipedia:

fn main() {
    let foo = 10; 
    // Suddenly, types are implicit now. A safe language should never have implicit types (now it's the (IDEs) implementations judgement which type that is. Combined with the variable shadowing "feature", this seems like a major clusterfuck. Now the IDE is the sole thing to tell you that you totally fucked up the logic, and both declarations/definitions (well which one is it? Would be nice to always have a direct KEYWORD telling you which type this fucking variable has. But no, the lazy piece of shit Rust 'programmer' left that as an exercise to the dear reader. Because in they just need to leave that part out instead of explicitly stating "I'm a lazy piece of shit" by *instead* typing 'auto'.) This is just Python-level BS. Yes, I also hate C++ for its auto keyword - but at least it explicit.
    println!("The value of foo is {foo}");
    let foo = 20;
    println!("The value of foo is {foo}");
}

fn add_two(x: i32) -> i32 {
// That is, again, the syntax of Python. Why? Because Python is explicitly untyped. So having types be a *literal* afterthought is Ok. They're fully optional anywhere there. Now we're in Rust. They're sometimes optional, sometimes not, but they're always preferred. Yet, they're also an afterthought, seemingly.
    x + 2
    // Implicit statements are bad. Very bad. They so much invite to glossing over stuff, especially when your brain expects to see something else. Also, having every statement ended with ;, except context blocks, but suddenly *not* having statements ending with ;, is fucking ugly (which is the entire point of this rant). It's completly inconsistent. Which in itself is a huge magnet for errors.
}

if x > 5 {
// Now why would you leave the parantheses, which are a major contributor to readability, away. Or even allow this. Rust is just memory safe, like dozens of other mainstream languages, but continues by allowing, promoting and requiring hazardous practices.
    println!("value is greater than five");
}

Now I’m slowly getting annoyed from typing on phone (at least in nvim), and my throat gets clogged with mucus again.

Remember, some of that are subjective preferences and opinions. And the core idea of Rust - fast but safe programs - is good, yet very obvious and not innovative at all, while the syntax and implementation (of cargo (yes I like to wait an hour for a simple webapp to compile because there aren’t binary crates and cargo just doesn’t multicore 99% of the time)) is subpar to something that’s hailed as the savior for everyone and everything by such a large cult.

This isn’t about some feature of the language being good or bad. It’s about Rust being ugly or not. The things I mentioned will always look ugly in the source code.

Sadly there’s still no truly good way to handle errors in rust. TBH I’m not sure if we as an industry have figured out an efficient, foolproof, composable, not overly verbose way to handle errors, so it’s not entirely on Rust.