Python is a boring technology. It's a 10+ years old language, like ~20 years behind cutting edge programming language research and implementation. Also, as for the programming style it encourages, it strongly nudges you against any "cool" way of programming: even the most basic kinds of functional programming is something you end up avoiding in P and "dumbing down" your code to more procedural idioms, and OOP over-over-over-architecting is something you just don't do because of the performance penalty and the lack of serious refactoring tools for large codebases. The side effect is that all code is more readable and understandble to anyone, including self-taught devs. JS itself is a boring language at its core too, except that it evolves faster than anything else. And the ecosystem is anything but boring (and also anything but sane...).

Cooler and more advanced (in terms of language features) languages are Julia (it has real macros, advanced type inference etc.) and even R (yeah, it's a mess, but as a language it's more advanced and "cooler" than Python). On the "web backend" scene Ruby is a way more "not boring" language, but the ML and science communities avoided it almost completely (I have a few theories as to why...).

And then there's the "truly cool" and "0% boring" languages like: Scala, Rust, Elixir, Clojure, Haskell, Elm, Crystal, Pony etc.

But don't get me wrong, I like Python for being what it is: an incredibly boring scripting language, that encourages a "stone age level" style of dumbed-down programming. With slightly awkward but stable libs (on which people agree almost unanimously of which to use). Because with Python I can focus on the product instead.

C++98 mostly coded in C style, is boring & hard.

C++17 written using best practices in safety learned in the last decades, is exciting and simple.

Processing transactions at a bank is "boring". It's simple, apart from scale, and the spec is usually insanely well documented.

But if you reach for that new language that hasn't been battle-tested yet, you're probably screwing the bank over.

The main gist is whatever you add to the company stack, the company is now responsible to maintain, possibly forever. My current situation is basically this times 10 since the people who did exciting tech left.

If the team and managers agree, by all means use the exciting tech, but it isn't a decision to make in isolation.

The canonical link on choosing boring technology is http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology.

A relevant example is microservices which are all the rage right now. But, you have to be this tall to use them[0]. You cannot effectively just say you are going to do microservices, especially if you don't know how to do microservices.

Alternatively, consider the potential problems for your company if you had introduced React on your own in a core business element, and your company had a patent beef with Facebook, and FB hadn't switched to the MIT license.

[0]: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/MicroservicePrerequisites.htm...