> As mentioned earlier, one of our top priorities is not breaking existing code or APIs
This is doomed then. Pandas API is already extremely bloated
This is doomed then. Pandas API is already extremely bloated
I admit that the API has issues (if/else? being the most glaring to me), notwithstanding Pandas has mass adoption because the benefits outweigh the warts.
(I happen to wish that 2.0 deprecated some of the API, but Python 3 burned a deep scar that many don't wish to relive.)
dataframe.column
vs dataframe['column']
as one example comes to mind but there is surely much moreI am of the philosophy of 'The Zen of Python'
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Pandas is a powerful library, but when I have to use it in a workplace it usually gives me a feeling of dread, knowing I am soon to face various hacks and dataframes full of NaNs without them being handled properly, etc.I would get rid of the .column accessor, but you will see a lot of pushback. Notably from the R camp.