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.
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.