Javascript always seemed to me a language that you used, and tried to use correctly, because you had to. On a server I have the choice, right? So my choice is currently Python so I read this article with some bias.
In the section "batteries not included":
> modules in the core distribution get an unfair advantage over the libraries in userspace by virtue of availability and prominance.
I would call it "unfair" if some modules had access to special backdoors and APIs, but it seem to not be the case for most modules I checked in Python. For instance, 20 mn ago, I did vim /usr/lib64/python2.6/unittest.py and could check this piece of code directly. I did see no special magic that could not be provided by other modules, like Nose or py.test. Moreover, the code was not looking like "neglected code", even if it did not look like the most modern kind.
> experimenting, and iterating is much harder
Well, that's what I like the most with core modules: they don't change overnight, and, while some of them like urllib(2) may be replaced by some because they have a better competitor, most of them are just good old friends, like scipy, that don't need to be put upside down every month because someone found a slightly more elegant way to call two of it's functions.
> "core modules"' advantage evaporates in the face of baked-in concurrent library versioning and sophisticated package management.
I have never been considered as a shy sysadmin when I was sysadmin. I am actually strongly against the "Tool X have misbehaved once therefore tool X is evil and will never put a foot again on my machine" philosophy. I know some guys who are. (I was also sound engineer before and mostly all musicians I met are this way, by the way). But still, having dealt with library version issues sometimes, I think "concurrent library versioning" and "sophisticated package management" sound awfully nightmarishly black-magic to me. I guess I would be more on the "let's understand the most of what happens and not change what don't need to" kind.