Am I crazy or did the OP swap the contents of the posts around accidentally?

https://eddie.codes/posts/pandas-should-go-extinct/ <=> https://eddie.codes/posts/source-code-comments/

• fortuitous-frog

  today at 3:37 AM

  Yep. Was very confused about the title and URL slug; reached the end waiting for Pandas to be mentioned.

• __eddie__

  today at 3:37 AM

  Sorry, fixed it now!

  Published two posts at the same time and total PEBCAK

It's been a while since I've seen an actual data science post submitted to Hacker News: both because AI has superset a lot of DS tasks (e.g. vector embeddings), but also because not much new has happened in DS. Polars has been around for a bit and as noted it is much better than pandas, but otherwise the DS ecosystem has been somewhat stagnant.

I'd write more tutorials about how to use data science tooling but one consequence of AI is that all the old data sources I used to analyze such as social media and Reddit are now completely locked down (I am surprised NYC Taxi is still being updated, though). Therefore in the meantime, I'm working on making better data science tooling...although unclear to what end due to the data issue above.

> People typically start with Excel and graduate to Pandas somewhere in the GB range. Pandas serves them well into the 10s of GBs range, and then they start hitting memory issues, slow computation, or become frustrated with Pandas’ baroque API.

Assumes that a project moves beyond 10s of GBs. I guess 99.9% of projects that import pandas fall well below this threshold.

• __eddie__

  today at 3:34 AM

  True, but also if Polars and DuckDB offer a similar experience with the ability to scale beyond that range, why not use them (for new projects)?

  This isn't a call to arms to rewrite everything in the new shiny, just consider the new shiny for new shiny things

• minimaxir

  today at 3:20 AM

  At my work I had convinced the ML pipeline engineers to switch from pandas to polars for even small ETL pipelines and there were notable performance gain with better CPU/memory utilization.

  If a library is performant at large datasets, it is likely performant at small ones too.

  • sjtrny

    today at 3:31 AM

    I’m not disagreeing with that statement at all. You missed my point that there are thousands of people making small Python scripts for education and personal projects everyday. In those circumstances the performance concerns are irrelevant and the ergonomics of good pandas documentation and community knowledge make it a better choice.

    • minimaxir

      today at 3:36 AM

      That inertia is not a good thing, and it's partially why there's stagnation in data science. Polars is more than mature enough in both documentation and resources for it to be a daily driver.

Only in the last few years did I start using SQL properly. Before that my pipelines would live in python. Now I offload as much to the db as possible, and keep my python simple glue. I'm very happy with this compared to other methods in pandas or polars.

If I still need to do db-like things in python I think duckdb is better.

Makes sense, especially with AI coding tools the rewrite and familiarity arguments hold less water. Similar for the rustify everything crazy.

The problem is, orgs who see themselves as big data orgs want to act that way, even if they're medium data. "But we'll need it when we grow", "we need to know the state of the art tools"

Real link here: https://eddie.codes/posts/source-code-comments/

Something going wonky on their blog, where two posts got their links swapped.

• jivanvl

  today at 3:36 AM

  So it wasn’t just then, for me it linked to their “Useful code comments” post

• __eddie__

  today at 3:34 AM

  Yep sorry, fixing now. It's what you get for being bitten by the bug to write twice in the same day

  • __eddie__

    today at 3:35 AM

    Fixed!

I'd drop pandas if polars worked eamlessly with sklearn.

Agreed on all counts.

In many cases I’ve found directly using python primitives to be less confusing than pandas.

Similarly, in companies I’ve worked at, the datasets just aren’t that big. Especially if you’ve got access to modern hardware.

I've been saying this since using Databricks at a company almost a decade ago. Most folks do not need big data tools, and it's just so entrenched because everyone wanted to be a "big data" company and pandas was how you handled big data.

I use polars or duckdb now exclusively. Better syntax, better performance. But pandas is deeply entrenched - I try to get my team off it but it’s an uphill battle. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Title is currently, err...: Useful Code Comments

Hoping OP can fix this on their end so the url has the expected content. Whoops!

• __eddie__

  today at 3:35 AM

  Yep, fixed now. Sorry!

Polars seems nice but in my experience using it, the "lazy" APIs would still immediately materialize a ton of stuff in memory and had very spotty support on what data formats and storage integrations were possible with scan_* functions (though that was half a year ago and the support is slowly improving). It's frustrating, I mean really frustrating, to think I could solve a lot of my "scan through heinous amounts of data without any memory hungry things like window aggregations without blowing out my memory" with Polars and then watch my scan_thisorthat() call result in instant memory usage ballooning.

DuckDB on the other hand is wonderful and truly doesn't use any more memory than it really needs to.