3 ms·
One where it was not necessary to specially create a ‘tidy’ version of everything to escape the horrific mess that exists by default
by mangecoeur 8y ago
One where it was not necessary to specially create a ‘tidy’ version of everything to escape the horrific mess that exists by default
- mike_ivanov 8y agoOK, I see. The debate is gradually coming to the pitchforks and torches phase. Tons of adjectives and still zero meaningful input. I insist on explaining what the "horrific mess" part is about.
- gaius 8y agoYour language was perfect the day it was created was it? R and it’s ecosystem stand head and shoulders above the rest.
- ryanmonroe 8y agoIt would help if you said explicitly what language you think is better in this respect. Having Data Frames in Python at all requires importing Pandas afaik, so criticizing R for requiring an extra data-manipulation package wouldn't make sense from a Python perspective.
- mangecoeur 8y agoThe point is not that you have to import a package, but whether by default package layouts and interop make sense. Notably, python scientific libraries build on a set of common foundations and apis (numpy, pandas etc). Additions to the ecosystem aim to build on familiar apis irrespective of implementation details (e.g dask). Python’s heavy use of namespaces makes organising a working environment simple, while it’s focus on consistent style and naming conventions means that code from different sources will look familiar. R meanwhile uses a global namespace (with at least two ways of loading libraries into it) so requiring more than a few extra libraries risks name collisions. Thus the need to create another ‘tidy’ library to fix a fundamental limitation of the language.
- mike_ivanov 8y ago> R meanwhile uses a global namespace This is just plain wrong.