> It doesn't force upon you a programming model that you might or might not care about. It's not a puzzle language where everything is a monad, or everything is

> It doesn't force upon you a programming model that you might or might not care about. It's not a puzzle language where everything is a monad, or everything is a class, or everything is some weird widget. Write the damn code. Yeah, I second this. There is some foot guns you'll hit in python, but the amount of foot guns I've hit in C++ and golang are 10x that of python. The other thing is that over time, the python devs actually strive to make development easier, and they try to resolve foot guns where they can. In golang, e.g., Rob Pike is very opinionated about how software should be written, and it's carried forward in the language. Python on the other hand, recommends people be "pythonic", but only encourages it, and doesn't enforce it upon the user. > I'd still rather write medium-to-large pieces of software (say 10,000+ LOC) in something else (Java, C#, C++, something boring like that), but it's pretty much unbeatable for small programs as far as I'm concerned. What I've learned is the python requires unit tests, as does golang, or basically any language that can throw a null pointer err. If you write your code modularly and have good unit tests around your code, it works amazingly well. I've been a part of good and bad large python projects. The best ones have really good unit tests around their code.