sometimes, online, i see people respond to demonstrations that language X is better at task Z than language Y with some version of "ok but is X as easy to learn?? as easy to write programs with?? as easy to understand?? as easy to maintain??"
X and Z vary.
Y is nearly always python.
i don't hate python, but i'm dubious about it being particularly easier to learn, and i'm definitely against the idea that it's easier to write programs with overall.
being comfortable with a tool is cool and all, and you may be able to do orders of magnitude more with it than anything else, but honestly that's a you limitation, not a python superpower. that's not even particularly derogatory, just. hostile lack of curiosity bothers me.
i realize that this comes from somebody who does this both full time and as a hobby. my perspective is skewed--one language may well be enough for most people. that's cool. i'm sure most of these people don't get into weird flamewars over their one language being the best at everything, so they're cool with me. it's just about the ones that display that hostile lack of curiosity.
as for ease of learning: my tentative stance is that the language itself is, within sane parameters {so no J.}, more or less irrelevant, it's ALL about filing down the entire "i want to try this out" to "it's running" journey until anybody can do it in literally five minutes.
without proper tooling, interpreted languages have a leg up here, since cli compilation is a huge pain point. but once we reach visual studio levels of "press this installer, press this button to start, press big green arrow to make it go", compilation vs. interpretation also becomes irrelevant.
that's also why excel is the biggest casual programming platform: your code runs before you even realize you wrote code. i will never forget my (tech-literate, but 150% non-programmer-y) brother accidentally explaining database table joins to me, because it's a thing he casually just did in excel at work, though not under that name.