9 ms·
Have you even looked at pandas? I get the impression you haven't. Pandas has most of the statistical utility functions that R does, and for those few that it
by jnbiche 10y ago
Have you even looked at pandas? I get the impression you haven't. Pandas has most of the statistical utility functions that R does, and for those few that it lacks, Python/Pandas also has available an easy-to-use FFI interface to R via rpy2.
Take a look: http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/ http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/
EDIT: Specified name of interface (rpy2).
- cwyers 10y ago> Pandas has most of the statistical utility functions that R does Pandas is not shipping with most of the stuff you can get on CRAN.
- blahi 10y agoHave you even looked at statistics? I get the impression you haven't. Pandas has aggregation and that's it. I don't really like to start those language wars, but what the heck. Your precious pandas is actually worse than the R alternatives in every way. It is slower than data.table while having comparable syntax. Dplyr is comparable in speed while having WAY better syntax.