Yeah, 1967. It was “FORTRAN II”. It ran on something about the size of a trash dumpster that IBM called a “Model 1440”, with a whopping 8K words of “core” (i.e., read/write RAM) memory.
Well, I don’t know C or C++ though on a few occasions I looked at C++ source code and could make sense of it, and even simple modifications.
I think it’s fair to assume that circuit design engineers, and even many technicians, have an acquaintance with some kind of programming language, but it may not be “C” or its derivatives. Some dialect of BASIC is probably a better bet.
In my opinion, “scripts” and “macros” for something like KiCAD really should be the same thing. (Except that macros can be automagically recorded from keyboard actions.) The underlying formal language should have a very simple, fairly obvious, and forgiving syntax. If you need terms like “iterator” and “tuple” to explain the syntax, it’s too complicated. In my mind that requirement tips the balance away from C/C++ and towards BASIC. I don’t know where Python falls on that spectrum.