If you feel awkward coming to Nim after getting so used to braced languages, believe me, after a while you will get used to it and maybe end up preferring it in the end.
Discussions about syntax can be important (to provide an extremely arbitrary example: Nim doesn't "cheapen" the syntax at the expense of reducing abstraction between it and the AST in spite of its AST macros, unlike Lisp/s-expressions) but they also tend to run headfirst into superficiality (we're not here to see C++ dressed up like Python, the semantics are more important than anything else) and subjectivity. That being said, it helps to understand the philosophy of Python's syntax (which Nim borrows from): braces were originally just there to make the compiler implementer's job easier. They've since become rationalized to be apparently important in conveying where scopes begin and end, but they're not the main thing we actually use to demonstrate a scope, which is indentation. Why not cut out the stuff we don't really need and use that already-existing pattern of indentation to provide the semantic of scope?
