I remember a film of Salvador Dali talking to a cheering crowd and saying in full dictator voice "... in the future... toilet bowls will be made of gold..." (roaring crowd). That's what's happened to the internet at large.
In the end, we ended up with quite a number of layers wrapping each other:
1. actual C++ implementation
2. actual C++ header
3. C++ wrapper implementation, avoiding constructs that Cython doesn't support
4. C++ wrapper header
5. Cython .pxd for step 4
6. Cython .pyx exposing `cdef class`es to Python with a nice Python-style API for the original C++ library.
7. Hand-written .pyi for type checking the remaining Python code, because Cython doesn't have support for auto-generating these yet.
The greatness and wretchedness of Python is "pythonicity". It's very hard to miss the mark with Python (all things considered: life is finite, most people are more like analysts than developers, analysts deliver generally more value per hour than developers, Rust is hard to learn) but you basically need to submit to the "Pythonic" brainwashing -- which includes "anything performance-critical should be written in $fast_lang and then used from Python; but almost nothing is perf critical, and most of what's conceivably needed already exists".
(The average data science/ML-ish person encounters/figures out custom algorithms maybe three or four times a year, and three of these are fast enough with vectorization contortions. I've had two cases that were recursive and 25X faster in $fast_lang than I could possibly make in Python.)
Matlab in theory has OO, but it's very slow and who bothers to verify that? So practically everything is matrices and there's very little "semantic expressed in code itself" (to paint issues with a broad brush). Also matrix calculations can get botched numerically, particularly matrix exponentials, but the whole culture (that I can't even expunge from my own thinking) is that I have a theorem so tests schmests.
Emerson, like so many self-help books, offers what looks on the surface trivial and immediately obvious, providing a seemingly simple "if-only" path. Meanwhile, his ideas on individualism have done untold damage to society as a whole.
This isn't to imply something simple as "Emerson is wrong". He has valid insights. But reading them in a vacuum, assuming Emerson alone is sufficient reading, is not the best approach.
Ultimately, it is no accident Emerson suggests to "set at naught books and traditions", because that is the only way his ideas can survive unscathed.
(fwiw, the advice of "read widely" holds for any given book. Never believe one person has the answers)
There are translations to "Hello" in Portuguese but I'd cringe at being greeted with them by a webmail client instead of the more formal Good Morning/Afternoon.
The formal/informal gradient is very culture-bound and even hard to pin to a scalar space of possibilities. In a work environment people will fluently code-switch too -- say, between ranks or in the middle of a tiresome meeting when everyone takes five minutes to kick back and comment on lighter matters. It's hard to situate a computer in this social context.
Of course, my life story is such that I've used Python professionally to the extent that I've started to forget all other languages -- so I naturally find the Blub Paradox Discourse favorable. But all the footguns that come with passing around pointers to memory addresses also come with a whole different way of expressing problems; whole different range of thoughts that are thinkable.
(I valiantly await the Rust brigade in my replies...)
The bitter lesson is that Messy AI is better able to cope with Messy World Problems than Neat AI (by light-years at this point), not that it can hack Neat Problems.