I don't mean to undermine your project, just wanted to know about significant differences.
I don't mean to undermine your project, just wanted to know about significant differences.
Also the last commit to the yhathq ggplot library was on Nov 20, 2016, so this library looks like it is currently more active in development.
Edit: Someone made an article comparing the two here: http://pltn.ca/plotnine-superior-python-ggplot/
- plotnine has 1,283 commits, 42 contributors, most recent commit is 3 days ago.
The only comparison that is important is how well the two projects work. I have no idea how well plotnine works yet (but I intend to find out). I do know that ggplot works OK - and seeing as it leverages matplotlib if there is anything that isn't implemented I can finish the plot off manually.
EDIT it seems that plotnine also leverages matplotlib and produces nicer plots for some common cases :).
Without additional context I find recency of last commit and number of committers to be almost impossible to draw useful conclusions from.
"On average, X is better than Y."
"Ah but I would rather have the top end of Y than the bottom end of X, therefore comparing averages is useless."
Yes, a brand new Ford Focus would be better than a Ferrari that doesn't run, but generally Ferrari is the better brand.
The earlier poster in this thread implied that number of contributors and recency of commits in one of two competing github projects was evidence that it was better.
My point is that these are inadequate (often totally misleading) heuristics unless both projects are otherwise extremely similar, which they usually are not, and even then are usually not very useful heuristics compared to other ways of comparing the projects.
Unless you know who the authors are, what the project management/organization style is, how the project is funded / what level of commitment the authors have, what the project release cycle is like, etc., or unless you directly examine the code yourself, the only thing that looking at the most recent git commit tells you is how recently someone published public code changes. Which is not something that anyone evaluating two projects cares about directly, but only as some heuristic signal of other features that might be more costly to examine.
But note that commit recency doesn’t give a remotely useful sense of how extensible the project is, how readable or efficient the code is, how well designed the API is, how good the documentation is, how friendly the community is, how competent the project management is, .....
If we want to make a car analogy, it’s like choosing which car to buy based on how frequently the company introduces new models, or how many engineers they employ, rather than based on customer reviews, reliability estimates, accessibility of mechanics, gas mileage, top speed, or storage capacity.
Your argument is basically analogous to: “because the average car with frequent updates is better than the average car with infrequent model updates, criticizing that as a primary criterion for choosing a car is an invalid argument”. Notice that you haven’t even bothered to examine whether your premise about the relation between updates and quality is true, or whether that average relationship makes update frequency a practically useful heuristic or not.
One useful conclusion: security bugs are likely to be fixed in a timely manner that won't put your users at risk.
For example, how often does DJB publish new code changes to his various projects?