3 ms·
I would say so. There are 4,500 results on Stack Overflow for '[pandas] typeerror': https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bpandas%5D+typeerror https://stackoverf
by yawaramin 8y ago
I would say so. There are 4,500 results on Stack Overflow for '[pandas] typeerror': https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bpandas%5D+typeerror https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bpandas%5D+typeerror
- Barrin92 8y agoI'm not sure that's a good metric. After all type checking does not really answer a question a developer has about type errors, it just informs you of a type error before you run your program. In fact I'd wager your average Haskell type error has generated more than a few frustrated stackoverflow questions.
- yawaramin 8y agoFair point. I guess it's fair to say that a typechecker would have avoided (almost) all runtime type errors and a fair portion of compile-time type errors provided the developer had type-guided tool assistance.
- Cybiote 8y agoType errors in functional languages (except Elm) are so unhelpful, you just get used to their general shape and your context to figure what the problem might be. Eventually these are rarely ever a problem but I agree that for beginners, type errors can be quite hostile. I'll say however, the benefit of an ML like Ocaml is less so the types than that functional languages are the most advanced in providing tools which allow for domain modeling in terms of composition and defining tailored algebras. This is something that fits both applied and experimental machine learning especially well.
- whateveracct 8y agoRight, but learning about the errors without having to run and hit every codepath in your program has a lot of value. So in that way, seeing how many people hit pandas runtime type errors is a useful thing to measure.
- Gormisdomai 8y agoI guess instead of "smarter" I should have said "smarter than what python does already".