All true, but that is the nature of any significant work on a computer, isn't it? After all, the syntax of a programming language is (IMO) a negligible burden on the way to producing meaningful code. During my RA/TA days, I used to do this surreptitious thing on sophomore and junior undergrads: after looking over and helping with their code (in C, or Pascal, or whatever) I would then show them a chunk of kernel source or some other real world program: something that looked so unlike their code that it could be an entirely different language. The idea was not to scare them or be a smart-arse but to give an idea (as I saw it) of the giant chasm between the principles of programming and real world code.
I agree that some languages are inserted into the real world in ugly ways (with pre-processor directives, linker pre-loading, and all sorts of voodoo), and others have constructs/syntax that are a bit difficult/ annoying, and Python can be a bit easier on the eye in comparison (at least in the syntax front) -- though I have my reservations about a programming language that uses whitespace as a significant token. But as asserted, these are minor annoyances on the way to learning to work with your machine in a deeper way. So, Python as a language, or keystrokes to reveal source, are really nice features, but seem hardly revolutionary... especially when compared (even) to such things as AppleScript and Automator.
Re: Unix inviting users... I want to discuss that further, also. I believe GUIs are confused with user friendliness. Unix requires (used to require) that you type in stuff in a monochrome window. Often what you typed in was a bit cryptic. But within days you could get off to doing fairly necessary userland tasks in an intuitive and easy manner ("ls | grep ...."!). And this happens at all levels. Think of the socket API implementation through the standard I/O calls that equate sockets to files. Something that helps a programmer move into a new space with no significant roadblock.
--ravi