I really didn’t understand the author’s grievances. The only concrete example they illustrated was one where they concluded that Python without Pandas is verbose and ugly to achieve the same outcome, hence Python is not great for Data Science.

That’s a bad argument or a naive and obvious one; depending on how you look at it.

Python wasn’t designed for Data Science. It is not a DSL for it. MATLAB was arguably designed for scientific computing, and yet it’s the most disliked language in the StackOverflow liked/disliked index.

Here’s a different way to look at it. A good programming language is like the weather in a city. I would love to live somewhere where it’s 72F/23C all year round. But if it’s in the middle of nowhere and I’ve got no friends to hang out with, would I? I don’t think so.

FWIW, Python is like Sweden or Finland, with shitty weather for 6 months of the year yet thriving against all odds.

PS: I think the article’s topic is a bit click-batey (not a particularly useful discussion) because it’s polarizing and no one will be 100% right about it. It’s perhaps best thought of as an opinion piece.