I learned C++ before learning python as well and python felt like a breath of fresh air.
At first I thought it was because of the lack of types. But in actuality the lack of types was a detriment for python. It was an illusion. The reason why python felt so much better was because it had clear error messages and a clear path to find errors and bugs.
In C++ memory leaks and seg faults are always hidden from view so EVEN though C++ is statically typed, it's actually practically less safe then python and much more harder to debug.
The whole python and ruby thing exploding in popularity back in the day was a trick. It was an illusion. We didn't like it more because of the lack of typing. These languages were embraced because they weren't C or C++.
It took a decade for people to realize this with type hints and typescript. This was a huge technical debate and now all those people were against types are proven utterly wrong.
> It was an illusion. We didn't like it more because of the lack of typing. These languages were embraced because they weren't C or C++.
It's an illusion only you once had. Java (a language that is not C or C++) got mainstream way before Python.
Java on the other hand had the most verbose syntax known to man, especially those early versions of it. Nowadays it’s getting more tolerable.
I don't understand, the parent says that not being C/C++ was a strong point and you give an counter example of a successful language that is not C/C++