So, kind of a non sequitur, but I occasionally think about Qt's QList. When introduced, it was odd for reserving space at the beginning as well as the end, so you had constant-time inserts/removals at the beginning. That and storing pointers for any T larger than a pointer also reduced the constant factor on insertion/deletions from the middle. Since it was always stored as a list of pointer-sized items, some code could be shared between implementations for different types, so your program's binary could be a bit smaller. I think they said at the initial release that they benchmarked a bunch of options in some real code and this won.
That was waaay at odds with the mindset of the STL, which seemed to me and I think a lot of folks like the state-of-the-art of containers at the time: with the STL if you prepend/insert much you need to use a deque/linked list, you decide pointer vs. value each time you declare a type, and if you want to know about the constant factor on an insert in the middle of the list you probably already lost.
(Qt has/had some other fun pragmatic things, like copy-on-write types in a lot of places. I didn't really do nearly enough with it to discover the pitfalls, but was fun to read.)
So I think about that, about how there are likely some trees out there that could just as well be sorted arrays, about adaptive structures that change their behavior based on dynamically observing how they're used (one recently discussed here: http://blog.erlang.org/the-new-scalable-ets-ordered_set/), even about tricks in in JS string implementations and VMs. I don't have answers, but I sometimes wonder if we should be thinking more in terms of tools that may not be perfect on all axes but soften or eliminate performance cliffs we take for granted. Not that the zero-overhead fine-tuned types are going away, just that they aren't the only imaginable approach.
I wonder if we'll see progress in those sort of imperfect-but-resilient tools over time. I think the long-run trend is towards some form of programming being accessible to more people more easily (like how, as you note, folks do real work in Python now). That certainly fits with trying to make your tools resilient to "misuse"--or, better, properly supporting more patterns so they're not even misuse. No conclusions, just hand-waving, but I do wonder if anyone working in software construction tools will eventually more usefully wave their hands in that direction :P