I find myself agreeing with the part about "scaling", meaning a (good) DevOps team makes it easier to integrate new projects into an existing infrastructure that's built in house. The point where relying on the vendors above becomes more expensive than having a full time DevOps team only happens once you react a certain scale.

There are plenty of people like that in a company but they normally don't cluster together, so it feels like "nobody else cares". That's false. At times that's how exactly how products, or even entire companies, are saved. Because a bunch of individuals who think like that get together and work hard to accomplish something.

Whether that effort is recognized or not depends on the company. If it's not then, I agree, it would be irrational to keep pushing. But you can't know until you try.

(Edit: to be clear, I'm not advocating prioritizing work over anything else, that really depends on you, but there's a fine line between "working hard" and being obsessed. The latter will more often than not result in a net negative in most cases. The same level of effort and/or prioritization should be applied to all areas of life)

What would be a lot more indicative of the financial success of the project (and less misleading) would be something like "trailing 3 months". But I get it: telling the world you're making $X/mo is a blast. And it definitely helps with exposure! But IMO it gives off guru vibes, especially when paired with the fact that you seem to be veering towards paid educational content (nothing bad with that obviously).

I wouldn't even bother writing this if it wasn't for the fact that you literally open with the line "my income jumped from $1,500 in January, to $65,000 in November", of which $50k is definitely not recurring.

(Again, not a hater, quite the opposite so I hope you take this as constructive feedback!)

What I'm saying is that considering Python a bad language, just because there are some languages that improve on some of its shortcomings, is just wrong.

As of today, Python is the most popular, hence (as a corollary) the best choice for most people. One day that might change, sure. These aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't agree with the claim about the market not being "rational". Someone who adopts Python even when given requirements that are clearly beyond the language's capabilities isn't going to last long in such market (and neither will their choices).

On the other hand there are plenty of people (myself included) who prefer using Python whenever possible, even though they have been "educated" in the use of other languages (I'd say I'm fairly comfortable with Typescript or even C building non trivial systems). I guess I'm not innovative enough :)

The main difference with JS is that we don't know whether it would be so commonly used if it wasn't for browsers. Still, it seems that the majority of efforts are towards augmenting JS' capabilities rather than finding ways to use alternative languages on the web (yes, I'm aware of WASM and maybe in the long run this statement will be proven false).

> The language itself is extremely poor

> I think this is not something most Python users are aware of

These two statements are contradictory. If it was indeed so "poor", people would notice :) If they instead increasingly adopt it (out of appreciation, not because they are lobbied into doing it) it becomes really difficult to logically demonstrate that it's a poor choice. Software development is a very efficient market. Everyone is (or can be) aware of (almost) everything. So if most people (including experienced devs) gravitate towards a certain technology, the only acceptable explanation is that the technology, as a whole, is good.

Deconstructing and pointing out the flaws of the individual components is a common flawed thought process IMHO. Python is great despite all the issues you point out. To me this is equivalent to comparing individual components when shopping for a product, missing the fact that it's the ensemble of all those (flawed) components that make the product (or the language, in this case) work. The easy syntax, the packages, the community, those are all things that make "weird scoping rules" pretty much irrelevant.

Not sure if that's a plus or a minus, after all there might be devs whose preferred stacks differ by 1 or 2 items (e.g. prisma over drizzle, nextauth over something else) and they'd both benefit from having a standardized template to start with.

EDIT: just remembered I fell in love with Meteor for a while. Then they started shoving React and other external stuff into it to gain more market share and it inevitably lost that opinionanted nature that, IMO, made it so good. Choice isn't always a good thing for the end user (even, and sometimes especially, when that end user is a professional who just wants to get things done).

Maybe there's a better way to outline this difference.

And I'm not sure I understand why, if you can't distinguish them, the distinction is unimportant. It's hard to distinguish an edible mushroom from a poisonous one and yet making that distinction makes a huge difference.

Interviews are definitely a limited tool to do so btw, this is only something that you realize over time. It's also very easy to play an interviewer if the interviewee's soft skills are better than the interviewer's (which happens often in this industry).

@dang any chance you could help here? :(

(Don't take it too seriously, like I said this is mostly a brain dump, I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that can be improved)