I think the term "Pythonistas" is more widely used
> you may need to question your choice of language if you start hitting performance ceilings.
Developers should also question if a "fast" language like Rust is really needed, if implementing a feature takes longer than it would in Python.
I don't like bloat in general, but sometimes it can be worth spinning up a few extra instances to get to market faster. If Python lets you implement a feature a month earlier, the new sales may even cover the additional infrastructure costs.
Once you reach a certain scale you may need to rewrite parts of your system anyway, because the assumptions you made are often wrong.
Agreed.
Ok, you are not competing with c++, but also you shouldn't be redoing all the calculations because you haven't figured the data access pattern..
Python + C covers pretty much anything you really ever need to build, unless you are doing something with game engines that require the use of C++/C#. Rust is even more niche.
While performance (however you may mean that) is always a worthy goal, you may need to question your choice of language if you start hitting performance ceilings.
As the saying goes - "Use the right tool for the job." Use case should dictate tech choices, with few exceptions.
Ok, now that I have said my piece, now you can down vote me :)