Python had strengths that drove it's adoption, namely that it introduced new ideas about a language's accessibility and readability. I'm not sure it was ever re

Python had strengths that drove it's adoption, namely that it introduced new ideas about a language's accessibility and readability. I'm not sure it was ever really meeting the needs of application developers. People have been upset about Python performance and how painful it is to write concurrent code for a long time. The innovations in accessibility and readability have been recognized as valuable - and adopted by other languages (Go comes to mind). More recently, it seems like Python is playing catch-up, bringing in innovations from other languages that have become the norm, such as asyncio, typing, even match statements. Languages don't succeed on their technical merit. They succeed by being good enough to gain traction, after which it is more about market forces. People choose Python for it's great ecosystem and the availability of developers, and they accept the price they pay in performance. But that doesn't imply that performance wasn't an issue in the past, or that Python couldn't have been even more successful if it had been more performant. And to be clear, I use Python every day, and I deeply appreciate the work that's been put into 3.10 and 3.11, as well as the decades prior. I'm not interested in prosecuting the decisions about priorities that were made in the past. But I do think there are lessons to be learned there.