I recently asked a question which was closed for being off topic. I have been directed to two links by the moderator: (1) (2) . After going through both the links, I am posting a request here to reopen as they do not answer my question.
This answer is from someone who has worked in a company involved with SciPy. He argued that python is a lot less intimidating for physicists than C++. I stated that I already know C++ (all High Energy Physicists do, I guess) and asked if there are any additional benefits to learning Python. To give an example, Mark commented that if I use Sage then I am already using Python. Sage runs on the python platform but if I run into some functionality that is not in the library or need to customize, I should know python. What else might be the benefit, for physicists (i.e some important software is written in it, suited to some specific application, or simply no need to learn etc.) as opposed to compiled\interpreted, hardware specific\platform independent etc.
Other issues most of the answers discuss are version control and bug tracking, etc. I think these are programmer oriented (I might be wrong) and and are not my concern presently. The second link discussed reproducibility, which after reading it I realize is important. However, that lies outside the scope of my question and present level. (I am just assimilating a rudimentary toolkit right now.)
Another question I asked was if there was any advantage of learning functional as opposed to an iterative programming language in physics. This is not answered by either of the links. This external link makes a case for haskell to mathematicians. Does it have some similar utility in physics? Moreover my interest was peaked when I overheard at a conference that it was best for implementation of quantum algorithms.
As someone commented, if these are too many questions feel free to edit it in order to make it approporiate. Then I can ask a narrower question later if it is not answered.