Respectfully, Martin, the focus on minimum keywords is actually the opposite of simple for some people.
Consider the underscore in Scala. While it is a single symbol fulfilling lots of roles, it is actually NOT simple for those who have to disambiguate WHICH of its many meanings it could be in the current context. To this beginner, it was overwhelming. I just patiently waited until I had enough reading skill to only have to look it up occasionally.
I would venture to guess that those who find words preferable over symbols find the “:” versus “with” debate a clear win for “with”. And those, much more comfortable flowing with symbols find the “with” meddlesome. What is simple for one is a less simple annoyance for the other.
If we meta up, this is likely the psychology behind all of the bike shedding. Your perspective on simple is very attuned to you, your experiences, and your preferences. Others starting and evolving from other domains like Haskell or F# have different weightings for the same symbolic representations.
Ultimately, you are the final arbiter of what the eventual flow needs to be. And many won’t find it flow-ful until they have been exposed to it for months, if not years. And that’s just how it’s going to be no matter what you end up choosing.