5 ms·

Whilst O'Reilly books just keep getting worse. Seriously, "Scipy and Numpy" is typo ridden and so simplistic it's irrelevant and "Python for Data Analysis" shou

by piqufoh 14y ago

Whilst O'Reilly books just keep getting worse. Seriously, "Scipy and Numpy" is typo ridden and so simplistic it's irrelevant and "Python for Data Analysis" should really be called "Mainly Pandas 'cos I wrote it, plus a chapter about IPython".

sycren 14y ago
Can you suggest a better book for data analysis with python?
- Choronzon 14y ago
  It is actually a good book and definitely worth getting,but it really should have been called Pandas for Data Analysis. While not directly covering the python libraries mentioned such as scikits learn this is a good into to some concepts in machine learning. https://www.udacity.com/course/cs373 https://www.udacity.com/course/cs373
- piqufoh 14y ago
  Do get the 'Python for Data Analysis' book as it's a good and well written - but it's about Pandas (which you can then use for Data Analysis).
gjreda 14y ago
I mostly enjoyed Python for Data Analysis, but do agree that there was too much focus on pandas (though that was to be expected with Wes McKinney writing it). I would have loved if the book had included sections on the statsmodels and scikit libraries, especially since they are integrated with pandas.
stdbrouw 14y ago
That's a bummer, I just bought Scipy and Numpy and was looking forward to reading it. Another piece of advice for people: about 80% of Python for Data Analysis is the same as the online documentation for Pandas, the other 20% some examples and other notes. So if you're buying it you should buy it to support Wes McKinney, not to learn a ton of new stuff. Which wouldn't be the worst thing you could do, pandas is pretty awesome and I don't know what else you would use in Python to do statistical data analysis. (Of course there are separate tools for more specialized analyses and techniques like ML and NLP, but I mean "plain ol' stats".)
wesm 14y ago
This is really a mischaracterization. The point of the book was to address data tooling topics (and the bare essentials: IPython and NumPy and matplotlib); for most data tasks (especially Chapters 7, 9, and 10) I would challenge you to replicate all of the data work without using pandas and then come back and snark on HN about how I'm self-promoting, or whatever. The truth is, it's the only game in town for complex structured data manipulation in Python, unless you want pages and pages of spaghetti nested dicts and lists. The sales numbers already show that the book was timely and relevant to a huge (> 10,000 so far) number of people.
- piqufoh 14y ago
  Wes, there needs to be a great book about Pandas as it's an amazing tool, and you've written it. But Data Analysis is a HUGE subject and passively implying that it can only be tackled with Pandas is misleading. My post was intended to be a snark at O'Reilly's general failing quality - I'm sorry if I put your nose out of joint.
  - darkxanthos 14y ago
    I do data analysis and pandas is a huge part of that. He can't usefully write about the whole universe of data analysis. The part he wrote about is definitely quite relevant.
- ryporter 14y ago
  In defense of Wes, the book does do a good job of introducing you to IPython and NumPy. I had mainly used Python as a generic scripting language prior to reading much of this book, mainly writing vanilla scripts in emacs. Afterwards (and with the help of online pandas docs), I felt like I was fairly productive at analyzing some new data that had been thrown my way. I can definitely see why some think that the title is misleading. The book clearly does not aim to survey the field of data analysis in Python. However, it does teach you everything you need to know to start doing data analysis in Python using one particular (good) tool chain.
- nullsub 14y ago
  Have to agree, piqufoh's comment is asinine. Pandas is the first time I've even considered moving work done in R to a new all-python workflow. Exhaustive coverage by some imaginary, disinterested third party would still be forced to settle on pandas as the focus, because it literally is the only game in town. As to the merits, per se, of having some third party write the book: I'm doubtful. I followed wesm's development through blog posts, twitter updates, etc. Writing pandas forced him to consider a lot aspects of dealing with data in python, both deep and practical. In the process, I'm confident he became one of the foremost experts in not only his own software but in the current state of Data Analysis in Python. Who better to write this book?

by piqufoh 14y ago

sycren 14y ago

Can you suggest a better book for data analysis with python?

Choronzon 14y ago
It is actually a good book and definitely worth getting,but it really should have been called Pandas for Data Analysis. While not directly covering the python libraries mentioned such as scikits learn this is a good into to some concepts in machine learning. https://www.udacity.com/course/cs373 https://www.udacity.com/course/cs373
piqufoh 14y ago
Do get the 'Python for Data Analysis' book as it's a good and well written - but it's about Pandas (which you can then use for Data Analysis).

gjreda 14y ago

I mostly enjoyed Python for Data Analysis, but do agree that there was too much focus on pandas (though that was to be expected with Wes McKinney writing it). I would have loved if the book had included sections on the statsmodels and scikit libraries, especially since they are integrated with pandas.

stdbrouw 14y ago

That's a bummer, I just bought Scipy and Numpy and was looking forward to reading it. Another piece of advice for people: about 80% of Python for Data Analysis is the same as the online documentation for Pandas, the other 20% some examples and other notes. So if you're buying it you should buy it to support Wes McKinney, not to learn a ton of new stuff. Which wouldn't be the worst thing you could do, pandas is pretty awesome and I don't know what else you would use in Python to do statistical data analysis. (Of course there are separate tools for more specialized analyses and techniques like ML and NLP, but I mean "plain ol' stats".)

wesm 14y ago

This is really a mischaracterization. The point of the book was to address data tooling topics (and the bare essentials: IPython and NumPy and matplotlib); for most data tasks (especially Chapters 7, 9, and 10) I would challenge you to replicate all of the data work without using pandas and then come back and snark on HN about how I'm self-promoting, or whatever. The truth is, it's the only game in town for complex structured data manipulation in Python, unless you want pages and pages of spaghetti nested dicts and lists. The sales numbers already show that the book was timely and relevant to a huge (> 10,000 so far) number of people.

piqufoh 14y ago
Wes, there needs to be a great book about Pandas as it's an amazing tool, and you've written it. But Data Analysis is a HUGE subject and passively implying that it can only be tackled with Pandas is misleading. My post was intended to be a snark at O'Reilly's general failing quality - I'm sorry if I put your nose out of joint.
- darkxanthos 14y ago
  I do data analysis and pandas is a huge part of that. He can't usefully write about the whole universe of data analysis. The part he wrote about is definitely quite relevant.
ryporter 14y ago
In defense of Wes, the book does do a good job of introducing you to IPython and NumPy. I had mainly used Python as a generic scripting language prior to reading much of this book, mainly writing vanilla scripts in emacs. Afterwards (and with the help of online pandas docs), I felt like I was fairly productive at analyzing some new data that had been thrown my way. I can definitely see why some think that the title is misleading. The book clearly does not aim to survey the field of data analysis in Python. However, it does teach you everything you need to know to start doing data analysis in Python using one particular (good) tool chain.
nullsub 14y ago
Have to agree, piqufoh's comment is asinine. Pandas is the first time I've even considered moving work done in R to a new all-python workflow. Exhaustive coverage by some imaginary, disinterested third party would still be forced to settle on pandas as the focus, because it literally is the only game in town. As to the merits, per se, of having some third party write the book: I'm doubtful. I followed wesm's development through blog posts, twitter updates, etc. Writing pandas forced him to consider a lot aspects of dealing with data in python, both deep and practical. In the process, I'm confident he became one of the foremost experts in not only his own software but in the current state of Data Analysis in Python. Who better to write this book?