I think this misses the point. You are basically saying that python is fast enough in cases that someone has written already written a fast package in not-python (plus bindings), whereas the value proposition for julia is basically: writing such packages in the future will be lots better.
Obviously the average user doesn't care, but if enough whiz-bang stuff starts to come out in Julia but not python, they'll move.
However, when talking about the "two language problem", the main issue traditionally was prototyping computational code in Python / Matlab / whatever and then having to drop into Fortran / C / Cuda for optimizing it. That's pretty much a solved problem in Python now - thanks to the well developed ecosystem, you don't really have to leave Python to write fast numerical code.
This example (DifferentialEquations.jl in particular and SciML.ai in general) is one of the places where Julia leads the pack.
When I first used Julia it felt rather strange in a lot of ways (I had used python for about 20 years), but after 2 years when I go back to python (and of course there are places where it makes more sense to use python) it feels primitive as there are a lot of very nice features of Julia that I suddenly miss.
I don't understand this argument. The same C and Fortran libraries that make numeric Python fast can be called just as easily from any other programming language, just like in Python.
> you don't really have to leave Python to write fast numerical code.
Well, you need to, for example, if you want to write a new numeric algorithm to call from python. As in, not use a numerical solver, but write a numerical solver from first principles. For that, Python is mostly useless and you'd need to use C or Fortran (or Julia).
Yes, it's easier to write the equivalent for Julia using native Julia code, but it's not clear to me that the average user will care.