[pkulak]

Sure, but using Python gives you 100 more problems. Would you like to set pip and your package manager on a fight to the death? Or is today the day you learn all about venv? Might as well use Docker. Oh nice, my 600MB script is ready!

[detaro]

That's not really an issue for small scripts, no.

[deathanatos]

Since I have no idea why this is downvoted: it really isn't for small scripts: if you just ignore pip/packages, Python is going to give you way more functionality out of the box than shell would, with a lot fewer sharp corners that will translate into a less buggy/more correct script at the end of day.

If you do take the time to deal with pip (which, yes, is a problem) you get access to even more batteries that would have been a pain or just flat out impossible with shell.

(& on many distros, you can use your system package manager. I'm not seeing a material difference between a shell script that requires "apt-get install jo" and a Python script that requires "apt-get install python3-requests" or something.)

But either way, for circumstances where shell is the wrong tool for the job, "invoke python in the middle of this shell script because it's a better tool for this particular part of the job" is a strategy I've used before & will keep using, b/c it produces code that isn't riddled with bugs.

[bb88]

It's behavior is really well defined and will stop on a syntax error, type error, or some other error that wasn't handled.

Bash on error will just move on to the next line as if nothing ever happened unless you:

    set -eu
    set -o pipefail