Your mistake is going from quantitative claims to categorical without evaluating the quantitative part first.
You say "everything is a band aid to some degree", and from that you conclude that "everything is equally bad or good". You conveniently forget the "to some degree" part to further your point.
It's similar to saying that all food has some amount of dust in it, so it shouldn't matter whether you just open the vacuum cleaner and eat the stuff collected on the drum, or if you order a meal at a fancy restaurant.
There's no evidence that Python "fits into reality" more than any other language. The thing that's going on for it is popularity. Popularity doesn't need to be rooted in technical merits, and in the case of Python it isn't. Finally, Python isn't unique in this sense. Even though the stage for programming language popularity pageant was set relatively recently, the participants learned to abuse the rules of the competition very quickly. There's a "rule" by a statistician whose name I cannot recall at this point which states that once people know the metric they are measured on, they will learn to game it. When we assess language popularity, we most assess how well the language authors or their community was able to game the metric rather than measuring any meaningful aspect of those languages.
You say "everything is a band aid to some degree", and from that you conclude that "everything is equally bad or good". You conveniently forget the "to some degree" part to further your point.
It's similar to saying that all food has some amount of dust in it, so it shouldn't matter whether you just open the vacuum cleaner and eat the stuff collected on the drum, or if you order a meal at a fancy restaurant.
There's no evidence that Python "fits into reality" more than any other language. The thing that's going on for it is popularity. Popularity doesn't need to be rooted in technical merits, and in the case of Python it isn't. Finally, Python isn't unique in this sense. Even though the stage for programming language popularity pageant was set relatively recently, the participants learned to abuse the rules of the competition very quickly. There's a "rule" by a statistician whose name I cannot recall at this point which states that once people know the metric they are measured on, they will learn to game it. When we assess language popularity, we most assess how well the language authors or their community was able to game the metric rather than measuring any meaningful aspect of those languages.