I think you're leaving out the most salient fact. Scientists are smart within their fields, but they're usually terrible at programming. I once saw a hundred-

I think you're leaving out the most salient fact. Scientists are smart within their fields, but they're usually terrible at programming. I once saw a hundred-page source file (one file for everything) that defined no functions. And of course it was in python. So if you're arguing that python is good if you want to exchange source code with people... I guess you might do that? Personally, nobody has asked me for my code in quite a while, so I do all my work in Calysto scheme (which is written in python and can accesss the whole library ecosystem). If, on the other hand, you're saying scientists' opinions on what constitutes a good programming language ought to be taken seriously, then you're wrong. Scientists are crappy programmers for the same reason they're crappy writers. Programming and writing are tools they use to get their real work done. Most of them master the minimum they need and spend most of their time in the lab