> I wouldn't want to spend that time one a one off script I only expect to run a few times.

You don't have to. No generics, `.clone()` and `.unwrap()` everywhere, and the Rust code goes brrrrr. :D

Or just...not deal with any of that, and literally bash my way through it. I hated the bash learning curve because it's so zany compared to "sane" langs, but once you hit a point in comfort, it's "muck around with syntax for a few minutes, applying to a test case of a few examples, dial it in, and let it rip on a few GBs of data and go work on other things". stringly typed pipes go brrrr XD. Composing unix utilities is horrific and beautiful all at once. Shellcheck helps a ton.

Recently started getting into Xonsh cause it still makes piping programs super easy, while being still fairly easy to provision.

Really wish there were a (stable) go-based scripting language and shell. There's tengo and some other things, but not primetime ready.

I thing you may like https://github.com/borkdude/babashka

There are some python based ones.

I'm laughing at how true this is, but at the same time, if you're doing this, it's probably the one case go excels at.

I would do it with D, but sure: whatever rocks anyones boat. All I'm saying Rust is not particularly worse for writing "quick&dirty" scripts ignoring good design and corner cases. And if any quick&dirty script becomes " important part of our legacy production environment" the story of improving such a script is much better in Rust.