Everything you said makes perfect sense and there's nothing for me to disagree with.

I'm also aware of the majority of your points, such as the .pyc files.

However, people seem to be coming at me for my title, not my content.

I actually concluded that Nim is *not* a good substitute for Python. I never claimed it was at any point. I wrote the article based on a question, and mentioned that others have made such a comparison, yet I concluded the answer was no.

This is also not another "Python sucks because it's slow" articles. I'm a big fan of Python and use it everyday. I just needed a predicament to use to explore Nim, the language I wanted to explore.

So this article is about Nim, not Python.

Finally, there's the whole thing about optimized Python code. People seemed to get super mad at my Python implementation of fibonacci. However, the whole point was to use a standard *unoptimized* implementation. The code for C and Nim could also be easily optimized.

I seem to have annoyed a lot of Python fans and I fail to see how that's valid given my conclusion.

The last point that needs to be made is that here's a 9min article with an average read time of 1m20s. Yet people want me to go in-depth into every point I make. That would be ideal, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Nevertheless, thank you for your points. I am sure you are way more experienced than me in this topic. The only points I have is that this isn't an article about Python, as well as I am forced to simplify things (like the Python interpreted vs. compiled debate) to fit it into something readable.