On Reproducible Code

-----Original Message-----
From: jim at bitwrit.com.au
Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:21:36 +1000
To: dcarlson at tamu.edu
Subject: Re: [R] On Reproducible Code

On 07/26/2012 01:50 AM, David L Carlson wrote:

We often refer requesters to the Posting Guide and chide them for not
reading it.
...
I hesitate to sound too optimistic, but there might be some advantage in
making the statement more prominent and adding a reproducible example
using
dput().

The reponses to some requests for help do seem to get a volley of the
"reproducible code" answers. Some, such as:

I can't get the answer. PLEASE HELP!!!

probably deserve it, but others appear to emerge from the overheated
brain of the frustrated noob. With a wonderfully informative name like
"dput", it is rather challenging to guess that this function is the way
to calm the affronted guru with an example of your problem. I am
particularly amused by the phrase "reproducible code", which sounds
perilously close to the definition of a virus. Perhaps the neglected
little message at the bottom of each email (which seems to reproduce
itself) might be easier for the uninitiated to understand if it read:

Please include the R code that is causing the problem _and_ enough data
(see the "dput" function) for someone else to run the code and get the
same problem.

I can remember when I didn't know that there was a "dput" function.

Jim

I can remember spending a lot of time constructing a data set to post before someone mentioned ?dput.  Ah, yes, I still have a couple of generic ones archived.

I think your wording above makes a lot of sense.