Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can appreciate that python "is a genuinely powerful and expressive language", and certainly no less so than rust or c++.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can appreciate that python "is a genuinely powerful and expressive language", and certainly no less so than rust or c++. > none of these things are a problem with the language per se, and they can be fixed with some combination of improving the implementation, writing better tooling As a JavaScript developer, I worked through a decade of this thinking, and it produced an oft-ridiculed morass from which we are still emerging. Or do I have that backwards? Were we too satisfied with our incrementally improved tooling all along the way? > c++... imposes a heavier cognitive burden on the user to take care of low level details that their applications might not need; golang... pushes the complexity out into the application where problems need to be solved via design patterns that people need to learn and copy, rather than just building them into the language or stdlib. These are intriguing critiques of the languages, and it follows from them that to package an executable, a Pythonista must either "take care of low level details," or "learn and copy... design patterns", all the while sacrificing the qualities of "readable, maintainable, and extensible by other humans". Steep costs, indeed! Arguably enough to justify the overhead of pretty much any Python portability hack. I don't wholeheartedly agree, but I respect the logic.