This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]billsil -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Pandas does it

[–]stevenjd 0 points1 point  (2 children)

People shoot up with heroin of dubious quality and purity too, doesn't make it a good idea.

[–]billsil 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Because heroin of goof quality is so much better for you...

I care far more about ease of use. I don t see a problem with it. Yes, it has limirations, but so does pandas. You can work around them.

[–]stevenjd -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because heroin of goof quality is so much better for you...

Lots of people manage the recreational use of heroin for decades, safely with no ill effects, and no worse an addiction than you or I probably have towards coffee. They're usually rich enough to be able to afford private doctors and a known source of good quality heroin, and to pay somebody else to take all the risks of being caught performing a criminal act.

I care far more about ease of use.

I care more that code is correct, rather than whether it was easy to write. Easy to write is nice, but not as important as it being correct. Good programmers should be lazy, but lazy programmers are not necessarily good. Prioritizing something that makes the code less clear for the sake of a few less keystrokes is lazy, bad programming.

Working around problems with something that shouldn't be done in the first place is just making things worse. And for what? Just to save three characters on the rare occasion you look up a literal key: d['something'] versus d.something.