The post just skips over _why_. It states that Python is 'more modern' than java as an axiom. This is not a particularly easily adopted axiom. For example, pyth

The post just skips over _why_. It states that Python is 'more modern' than java as an axiom. This is not a particularly easily adopted axiom. For example, python is in fact older than java. Which surely isn't what the author is talking about. But what _is_ the author talking about? It just isn't said. It merely states that the argument 'python is slow' is no longer relevant. It doesn't even state a reverse argument (why python would be better than java), and thus doesn't even begin to allow waylaying _those_. As a trivial example, perhaps the author means: A nominally, strongly, explicitly typed languages is obsolete. In which case - how does that explain how, for example, typescript has happened, which actively _re-introduces_ these aspects to a language? Clearly then, 'python is superior' cannot be taken as a truth universally held and requiring no logical argument. The rest, sure, whatever - "Programming language used has a significant impact on what you can write and how one would write it" is.. kinda obvious, no? Turing machine logic says that it is _literally_ incorrect (anything you can compute in one, you can compute in the other), but that _is_ something all those with a modicum of programming experience probably take for granted. You _can_ write a compiler in brainfuck, but, that'd be insane. The tricky argument isn't stated, the obvious arguments are. I surely must be missing the point of this post.