R annoyances

From: Vadim Ogranovich

I guess it depends on what kind of data analysis one does. R 
is designed
and best suited for the analysis that starts with a data frame which
fits in 1/10th of your computer RAM. R programming is then mostly
limited to writing small convenience functions for better 
presentation,
visualization, etc. Or alternatively one implements a new fitting
procedure/algorithm and applies it to the data.

Now things begin to look harder when you have 200G of data 
and 8G of RAM
and still need to find "structure" in the data. You need to 
pre-process
the data, recover from *unexpected* failures, store and retrieve
intermediate data sets, etc. This requires qualities of a good
general-purpose programming language. Note, we do not use R 
to program a
system, we do data analysis so we should be considered R *users*.
In my view, and the experience of the colleague of my 
confirms it, R has
a long way to go to become a wrinkle-free general purpose language.

To your specific question, why good (C++) programmers should not
struggle with R? Because they have the skills to plan 
sizeable programs
in any wrinkle-free language.

Hope this makes my earier comments more clear,
Vadim

-----Original Message-----
From: Berton Gunter [mailto:gunter.berton at gene.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Vadim Ogranovich; 'Thomas Lumley'; 'Rod Montgomery'
Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: RE: [R] R annoyances

Vadim et.al:

I do not care to comment one way or the other about R's 
"irregularities.'
But I am puzzled by your statement that a "good C++ 
programmer is struggling with R." Why should they not 
struggle?! R is primarily a language for data analysis, 
statistics, and graphics. I do not understand why someone who is a
C++ programmer would be expected to have the knowledge and 
experience to 
C++ be
a "data miner" and would not therefore struggle to deal with 
the statistical and data analysis issues that are 
deliberately at the heart of many of R's programming conventions.

Is there something here that I am missing, or is this yet 
another example of Frank Harrell's "instant brain surgeon" 

commentary?

-- Bert Gunter
Genentech Non-Clinical Statistics
South San Francisco, CA
 
"The business of the statistician is to catalyze the 
scientific learning process."  - George E. P. Box
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch 
[mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Vadim 
Ogranovich
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Thomas Lumley; Rod Montgomery
Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: RE: [R] R annoyances

I think the flaw in this reasoning is that programmers are not 
considered users. IMO, making a better language is beneficial for 
users.

I am now watching how a new colleague of mine, a very good C++ 
programmer turning into a data miner, is struggling w/ many 
"irregularities" of R.

-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch 
[mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of 

Thomas Lumley

Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Rod Montgomery
Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] R annoyances

On Thu, 19 May 2005, Rod Montgomery wrote:

Thomas Lumley wrote:

This one is actually a FAQ,
        mtx[,1,drop=FALSE]

    -thomas

I wonder whether there is, or should be, a way to set FALSE

as the default?

There shouldn't be (apart from editing the code), because 

you really 

don't want something this basic to be unpredictable.

There have been discussions at several times about whether 
drop=FALSE or drop=TRUE should be the default. The decision has 
always been that programmers can cope either way, but 

that users 

probably don't expect mtx[,1] to be a vector, and that they 
definitely don't expect mtx[1,1] to be a matrix.

 	-thomas