6 ms·
> On contrary. No scientist, except computer scientists, wants to deal with the quirks of ~~most~~ any programming language. Fixed that for you. IME, in academ
by shakow 4y ago
> On contrary. No scientist, except computer scientists, wants to deal with the quirks of ~~most~~ any programming language.
Fixed that for you. IME, in academia (outside of CS), Python is not especially loved at all: it's just there, with Java, R & Perl, and is more seen as a fact of life to deal with rather than anything else.
- mharig 4y agoSo why didn't/don't they use Java, R & Perl more often? Because with Java you have to write inflated Fugu, R is too specific and it lacks the vast ecosystem of Python, and Perl causes eye cancer.
- shakow 4y ago> Because with Java you have to write inflated Fugu, R is too specific and it lacks the vast ecosystem of Python, and Perl causes eye cancer. Tell me you know nothing about academia without telling me you know nothing about academia. R is a staple of anything statistics, Java is immensely used, and Perl is the backbone of half of bioinformatics.
- mharig 4y agoAnd how does just one of your statements contradict my post??
- tylermw 4y ago> R is too specific and it lacks the vast ecosystem of Python That's the first time I've ever heard this criticism of R: most staunch R critics will acknowledge R's vast breadth and depth of statistical libraries outclasses Python. Python has far more general use programming libraries (so deploying models is easier) and used to have a slight advantage in ML specific libraries, but there aren't major differences nowadays between the two ecosystems.
- mharig 4y agoSearching for 'R' in CRAN returns around 24000 R packages, pypistats.org tells about 437000 Python packages. This is not a major difference to you? I admit, that R has an advantage in bleeding edge statistics, e.g. from papers. But that is nothing >99% of statistics users need.