> Note that I've not written any significant code in either language, so I'm just writing based on what I've learnt by reading.

So he’s basically comparing 20+ years of Python usage with marketing material from Go and Rust. Right.

I wish people could be honest with their motivations, instead of making up excuses to justify this sort of change. Here it’s a classic case of “I got bored and I don’t like the new features, want new shiny”, wrapped in a bit of whining about problems that have well-known solutions (use a good IDE, use type hints or one of the many libs that enforce types...). I have no problem with that, just don’t try to sell it to me on technical grounds, because it looks very much like you have none.

Python is still one of the best ways to get stuff done, quickly and with a minimum of boilerplate. Its limitations are well-known and have not really increased for about 15 years - if anything they have shrunk in many, many areas. Adoption rates keep exploding, despite a lot of doom forecasted by some alpha geeks about 10 years ago: “There is no mobile story! We will all be using Ruby/Go/NodeJS tomorrow! Nobody will ever go to Py3!” Etc etc etc.

You got bored by it? That’s fine, it happens, no harm done. But you don’t need to convince anyone, including yourself, that you’re moving on because of this or that flimsy excuse.

Perhaps there should be apostasy punishments for Python defectors. /s

Python's typing story is far from perfect and rather annoying compared to other languages. Python is good for interacting with the operating system, networking and other things.

But wanting a proper compiler is an honest motivation.

If one were to write perfectly type-annotated Python, and a hypothetical perfectly annotated standard library existed, what’s preventing a faster runtime being developed with performance similar to C#, for example? That will never happen, so maybe “what if” isn’t even worth asking