You might be being really subtle about python there ! I realize that one can create lines of code like :_ = (
255,
lambda
V ,B,c
:c and Y(VV+B,B, c
-1)if(abs(V)<6)else
( 2+c-4abs(V)-0.4)/i
) ;v, x=1500,1000;C=range(vx
);import struct;P=struct.pack;M,\
j ='<QIIHHHH',open('M.bmp','wb').write
for X in j('BM'+P(M,vx3+26,26,12,v,x,1,24))or C:
i ,Y=_;j(P('BBB',(lambda T:(T80+T9
i-950T 99,T70-880T18+701
T 9 ,Ti(1-T452)))(sum(
[ Y(0,(A%3/3.+X%v+(X/v+
A/3/3.-x/2)/1j)2.5
/x -2.7,i)*2 for \
A in C
[:9]])
/9)
) )
(stolen from : http://preshing.com/20110926/high-resolution-mandelbrot-in-o...)
which could be seen as retrograde vs assembler (but not really for the very funny and brilliant code above - you have to see in formatted nicely and run it to realize that there are some great people out on the web!) perhaps in fact I would agree with this dig - some people do write horrid bits in their python code and python seems to facilitate (or enable) this behavior rather more than other modern languages like Julia. But taking your comment more at face value, reading it to say that more complex methods represent an evolution and that they should be accessed by users as they are easier or better I would disagree. It is easy to screw things up with a random forest or a booster in the sense of overfitting, focusing on the method and not the features and not understanding what the model extracted is telling you about the data. Often a regression model or a decision tree can reveal that there are a few simple things going on which say more about how a process or system has been implemented than the generating domain that that process or system is operating in. This can be gold dust. So, I think that they can be easier to use and simpler to understand, of course when they don't do the job better model generators are required.
which could be seen as retrograde vs assembler (but not really for the very funny and brilliant code above - you have to see in formatted nicely and run it to realize that there are some great people out on the web!) perhaps in fact I would agree with this dig - some people do write horrid bits in their python code and python seems to facilitate (or enable) this behavior rather more than other modern languages like Julia. But taking your comment more at face value, reading it to say that more complex methods represent an evolution and that they should be accessed by users as they are easier or better I would disagree. It is easy to screw things up with a random forest or a booster in the sense of overfitting, focusing on the method and not the features and not understanding what the model extracted is telling you about the data. Often a regression model or a decision tree can reveal that there are a few simple things going on which say more about how a process or system has been implemented than the generating domain that that process or system is operating in. This can be gold dust. So, I think that they can be easier to use and simpler to understand, of course when they don't do the job better model generators are required.