upvote

points

by jstanley11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jamessb11 hours ago|
next
[-]
Plotnine is heavily inspired by the ggplot2 library, which uses the + operator in the same way: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/#usage
reply
upvoteby bittumenEntity8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It is! And that's kinda the point.

Like others mention, this is inspired by ggplot2, a Grammar of Graphics library. The whole idea is graphics are composed by adding "layers", not like layers on a canvas, but like pouring paint into a pot, then the library understands the content and paints it to the canvas.

Layers might be pure data, geometry (lines, points, ...), annotations, styles, axis, etc.

When you get familiar with it, it's much more natural way of describing plots, better composition and easier exploration

reply
upvoteby bittumenEntity8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And a side note, R actually includes a pipe operator (as in Unix `|`), and said if they'd know about it at the time, they would have never used the `+` operator
reply
upvoteby bbminner6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
How `plot(.. + ggsize(700, 300) + ..)` is superior to a keyword parameter `plot(.. , size = (700, 300), ..)`?
reply
upvoteby 141136 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because, in the latter case, you have to declare a function argument for /every possible option/ that you want your graphics API to expose, and you need to do this every time you add a new option.

On the other hand, declaring the options through composition means that the API for "plot" remains static, and adding/removing options can be done trivially without an API change.

Composition (rather than parameters) is also more flexible. Let's say you want to divide your plot into three sub-plots, two of which are 200x200, and another which is 200x400. How do you express this as a keyword parameter? In composition, you could do something like:

plot( ggsubplot(ggvsplit(ggsize(200,400), gghsplit(ggsize(200,200), ggsize(200,200)))) )

reply
upvoteby jstanley5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And how do you express that as arithmetic?

I can get as far as `plot() / 3` but then no idea how to proceed. I don't think overloading arithmetic is a very good way to express this.

reply
upvoteby bittumenEntity5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Isn't this somewhat the point of python's override capability? You can exactly define what addition means here, just like you have to define what addition means for a matrix or another data structure.

Separately you might find this to be smelly design, but then you should remember that this at least has precedence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

reply
upvoteby CuriouslyC4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Honestly operator overloading is almost always a bad choice IMO. There are cases (e.g. matrix math) where it's the right choice because of semantic clarity, but the indirection it creates in exchange for readability is costly. It's always obvious when a function is being called, and how to navigate to the implementation, but the same is not true of overloaded operators.
reply
upvoteby AnimalMuppet3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, it's like most tools. For this particular use, does it give more than it takes? If so, use it.

Matrix multiplication? Yeah, everybody knows there's a function being called. And, if it was implemented right, the users almost never have to look at the implementation.

Many other possible uses? Nope. Just nope. Not worth it.

reply
upvoteby sdenton45 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
kwargs exists, and is rather more pythonic. Just pass the kwargs dict to a standard formatting function, et voila.
reply
upvoteby bittumenEntity5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sadly, this drive towards the API design that matplotlib resembles, the raison d'etre of this library is the unusual (imho, great) API
reply