No, there is no language v. framework confusion on my part. What I'm arguing
is a concrete, fundamental fact that pertains to both the framework and the runtime.
I'm not sure what I can do to clarify the point anymore: the V8 engine is created and maintained for the purposes of speeding up a web browser's processing of Javascript within the context of an HTML document. The goals of the team implementing the runtime are not to create a general purpose language, they are to create an engine which excels at one specific use case, and granted this use case is broadening over time.
But to address your point: yes, the developers of Pyramid (to take an example) have not to my knowledge submitted code to e.g. optimize networking functionality in core Python so that it better suited their specific needs. On the other hand, the Python team has had an excellent track record in observing and adapting to trends within their community -- the introduction of WSGI is one such example.
The Python community has a PEP process for generating discussions about what the language needs. To my knowledge, there is no discussion within the V8 developer community about how to make the engine more suitable for server-side programming. And how would you begin the process of adding general programming features to the language itself? Join ECMA?
If you're really concerned about other people's language choices, you're going to need concrete reasons, not just generalities, vague insinuations and your own personal preferences.
Excellent editing. Much less combative.
EDIT: Actually I'd like to add a couple more things:
Node.js is a framework built by people other than the language's core maintainers (which is true of most frameworks)
That is not a point of contention. That is a simplistic reduction of my point which conveniently serves your argument.
If you want to add fundamental language features, you can't just force it into the core implementation, but will have to implement your own offshoot (which is true of most languages, including, for example, Clojure)
This entirely misses the question -- why use a language whose core feature set does not cover your use cases? Why use a language where you must extend the language to get fundamental features? Moreover, no you will not have to implement an offshoot to get core features. At the risk of repeating myself: when you have control over the direction of the language's evolution, you can petition and propose changes.