No it's wrong because of the mess it makes. Which makes even the things that that crowd of people wants to focus on, like wuick scripts or data science, harder.

If your objective is to reliably build software then it’s objectively worse.

Many, probably the majority, just want to build something quickly and be done, or get to the next iteration. It's a huge reason why Python is widely adopted in classrooms and for ML/AI. It's objectively better than other languages that force extra overhead on users by default.

I would argue that it should be possible to make something rigorous and easy to use here. The Python model is pure incidental complexity.

It's not an argument that so far stands in this context. Otherwise a decent amount of the languages most preferred by experienced software engineers would be used more generally by literally anyone else outside that set. And Python then would either be very different, or have far less mind share.

Also keep in mind that a) Python has been around longer than every other "popular" language, and so b) it has a lot of baggage that it has to maintain in order to avoid another 2to3 fiasco.