3 ms·
Wouldn't it be better to have a Python statistics library instead of creating a new language? When I looked at the documentation of R it looked very convoluted
by grn 14y ago
Wouldn't it be better to have a Python statistics library instead of creating a new language? When I looked at the documentation of R it looked very convoluted and it seems that my feeling is confirmed by other comments in this thread.
- billwilliams 14y agoPython is inherently not conducive to data analysis the same way R is. Python is not a lisp. R is more lispy, and its functional attributes make it incredibly useful for producing data analysis based code. For fully production ready systems R is not the ideal choice. For off the cuff analysis, python is a meager second.
- shared4you 14y agoOf course, these days Pandas is _the_ Python library for statistics. There is also scikit-learn. http://pandas.pydata.org/ http://pandas.pydata.org/
- grn 14y agoI haven't used R nor Pandas. How does the two compare? Why do people use R and not Python?
- reyan 14y ago> Why do people use R and not Python? R style DataFrames was raison d'etre of Pandas in the first place. (http://pandas.pydata.org/#why-not-r http://pandas.pydata.org/#why-not-r)
- maxerickson 14y agoPeople started using R about the same time they started using Python (that is, the first half of the 1990s). Since then, R has gained a huge number of statistics packages. Python has fewer of them.