Modern languages have so many features that they must keep the grammar small in order to reduce the learning curve. I guarantee that the best state-of-the-art languages of the future will do the same. For this reason alone, Python is clearly better than Ruby or Perl.
Clark Maurer, Comparing Python to Perl and Ruby
I almost hesitated to link this one, because Clark works on a text editor and has some idea of what it takes to provide syntax highlighting and language support. However, you know the rules of the Internet: if you say something silly, expect someone to call you on it (sadly, even if it's satire).
By the criterion in the quoted paragraph alone, bf is clearly better than even Scheme, but loses out to the Universal Turing Machine. Python can't even compare; its grammar is over a dozen lines long.
The assertion that keeping a grammar small reduces the learning curve of a language with lots of features baffles me. No matter how much syntax fetishists pound their fists on the table,
call/cc just isn't immediately obvious to novices simply because Scheme has uniform prefix syntax. The other assertion that Ruby is difficult to learn because
yield means something different than in other languages makes me think that Dylan should have more users than Lisp. (Ouch.)
chromatic's second rule of programming language syntax is You can always look up syntax in the manual.