5 ms·
You might be thinking of specific functionality that you find is being implemented in an overly long/verbose fashion.. But generally speaking, how are > long l
by nvilcins 5y ago
You might be thinking of specific functionality that you find is being implemented in an overly long/verbose fashion.. But generally speaking, how are
> long lines of().chained().['expressions'].like_this(0)
a _bad thing_?
IMHO these pandas chains are easy to read and communicate quite clearly what's being done. If anything, I've found that in my day-to-day while reading pandas I parse the meaning of those chains at least as efficiently as from comments of any level of specificity, or from what other languages (that I have had experience with) would've looked like.
- musingsole 5y agoPeople don't like them because the information density of pandas chains is soooo much higher than the rest of the surrounding code. So, they're reading along at a happy place, consuming a few concepts per statement ...and then BOOM, pandas chain! One statement containing 29+ concepts and their implications. Followed by more low density code. The rollercoaster leads to complaints because it feels harder. Not because of any actual change in difficulty. /that's my current working theory, anyway
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoHmmm, interesting. I don't mind the information density, coming from R which is even more terse, but the API itself is just not that well thought out (which is fair enough, he was learning as he went).