I don’t dislike python, but as far as I know reproducibility is a big problem in scientific circles (actually in both meanings, but I’m talking about copy-pasting codes not running at all).
ML is famous for it and python is the most used language there.
Reproducibility would be a problem in scientific circles regardless of language. Researchers are negatively incentivized on reproducibility to avoid scoping and the like.
You're right, reproducibility is a problem in science, all science and not just ML (again, as you say), so I don't think that proves anything wrong with Python.
That is true, but maybe Python doesn’t help with its primarily interpreter-based ecosystem (think of jupyter) where a result may only worked for the author because a variable he/she uses used to refer to something else no longer there in the source code (but still defined). Which bit me more than once with for example sage - but it may be simply a problem with jupyter/the way the scientific community writes code.
ML is famous for it and python is the most used language there.