An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20121105/818b8776/attachment.pl>
A general question: Is language S a component part of R?
13 messages · R. Michael Weylandt, Iurie Malai, Patrick Burns +7 more
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
In the "Introduction and preliminaries" the "An Introduction to R" manual says about R: "... Among other things it has ... a well developed, simple and effective programming language (Called 'S') ... ". Now I'm a little confused. This means that language S is a component part of R? And S is not free? But R is free? Or the mentioned S is only "a free implementation" of the "true S"? Can anybody explain this? I want to know. Thank you!
'S' is a language, invented at Bell Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_(programming_language)) which has two major implementations. S-Plus, which is a commercial product, and R, which you know well. R was originally quite like S/S-Plus, but it's changed over time and diverged aways and now I believe the R README says R is 'not unlike' S. Consider, e.g., Python, which is a language (specified in documentation) with multiple implementations: CPython, PyPy, Jython, IronPython, etc. If R and S-Plus had identical functionality they would be different concrete realizations of the abstract 'S' language, but they're more than slightly different in practice. Not sure if that helps at all.... Michael
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20121105/95a70269/attachment.pl>
There is a bit of history in: http://www.portfolioprobe.com/2012/05/31/inferno-ish-r/ Pat
On 05/11/2012 17:09, R. Michael Weylandt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
In the "Introduction and preliminaries" the "An Introduction to R" manual says about R: "... Among other things it has ... a well developed, simple and effective programming language (Called 'S') ... ". Now I'm a little confused. This means that language S is a component part of R? And S is not free? But R is free? Or the mentioned S is only "a free implementation" of the "true S"? Can anybody explain this? I want to know. Thank you!
'S' is a language, invented at Bell Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_(programming_language)) which has two major implementations. S-Plus, which is a commercial product, and R, which you know well. R was originally quite like S/S-Plus, but it's changed over time and diverged aways and now I believe the R README says R is 'not unlike' S. Consider, e.g., Python, which is a language (specified in documentation) with multiple implementations: CPython, PyPy, Jython, IronPython, etc. If R and S-Plus had identical functionality they would be different concrete realizations of the abstract 'S' language, but they're more than slightly different in practice. Not sure if that helps at all.... Michael
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Patrick Burns pburns at pburns.seanet.com twitter: @portfolioprobe http://www.portfolioprobe.com/blog http://www.burns-stat.com (home of 'Some hints for the R beginner' and 'The R Inferno')
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20121105/57068815/attachment.pl>
Almost all syntactically correct S code works in R and S+ the same as it did in S (the last version of which came out c. 1999), modulo bug fixes. Off the top of my head, I'd say the only things that were eliminated were the use of the underscore as the assignment operator and the elimination of the keywords 'T' and 'F'. R extends the language, e.g., to do lexical scoping, and S+ has stayed truer to S. Hence I would say that the language interpreted by R is almost a superset of the S language as it existed in 1999. (I'm speaking of the language itself, not the packages build using the language.) Bill Dunlap Spotfire, TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com
-----Original Message----- From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Iurie Malai Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:38 AM To: Patrick Burns Cc: r-help at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] A general question: Is language S a component part of R? After reading the 'Inferno-ish R' the first thing that comes to mind is that R is very much like S, but it's still different (R is not S), so it can't contain the S as a programming language, as the manual says. Or I'm wrong? 2012/11/5 Patrick Burns <pburns at pburns.seanet.com>
There is a bit of history in: http://www.portfolioprobe.com/**2012/05/31/inferno-ish-
Pat On 05/11/2012 17:09, R. Michael Weylandt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
In the "Introduction and preliminaries" the "An Introduction to R" manual says about R: "... Among other things it has ... a well developed, simple and effective programming language (Called 'S') ... ". Now I'm a little confused. This means that language S is a component part of R? And S is not free? But R is free? Or the mentioned S is only "a free implementation" of the "true S"? Can anybody explain this? I want to know. Thank you!
'S' is a language, invented at Bell Labs
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**S_(programming_language)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/S_(programming_language)>)
which has two major implementations. S-Plus, which is a commercial product, and R, which you know well. R was originally quite like S/S-Plus, but it's changed over time and diverged aways and now I believe the R README says R is 'not unlike' S. Consider, e.g., Python, which is a language (specified in documentation) with multiple implementations: CPython, PyPy, Jython, IronPython, etc. If R and S-Plus had identical functionality they would be different concrete realizations of the abstract 'S' language, but they're more than slightly different in practice. Not sure if that helps at all.... Michael
______________________________**________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/r-
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/** posting-guide.html <http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
-- Patrick Burns pburns at pburns.seanet.com twitter: @portfolioprobe http://www.portfolioprobe.com/**blog <http://www.portfolioprobe.com/blog> http://www.burns-stat.com (home of 'Some hints for the R beginner' and 'The R Inferno')
-- Iurie Malai +(373) 79288710 - Moldcell +(373) 67459710 - Unite [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20121105/5999cd9a/attachment.pl>
On 06/11/12 09:40, Iurie Malai wrote:
So, R (as a language) can be viewed as an extended S language (S + some improvements)? And the R environment includes this (extended) language + extensions?
Are others getting as sick of this silly, pedantic and completely
irrelevant pseudo-scholasticism as I am?
cheers,
Rolf Turner
On 05-11-2012, at 22:04, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 06/11/12 09:40, Iurie Malai wrote:
So, R (as a language) can be viewed as an extended S language (S + some improvements)? And the R environment includes this (extended) language + extensions?
Are others getting as sick of this silly, pedantic and completely irrelevant pseudo-scholasticism as I am?
Yes. Let's just stop it. Berend
On Nov 5, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all! At least for me, the manual text has a contradiction. If R is much like S, in other words it is a "diverged" S, as Michael says, it can't include itself as a component part.
I'd think something like C/C++ -- the later includes the former ... mostly ... except where it doesn't. Michael
Regards, Iurie 2012/11/5 R. Michael Weylandt <michael.weylandt at gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
In the "Introduction and preliminaries" the "An Introduction to R" manual says about R: "... Among other things it has ... a well developed, simple and effective programming language (Called 'S') ... ". Now I'm a little confused. This means that language S is a component part of R? And S is
not
free? But R is free? Or the mentioned S is only "a free implementation"
of
the "true S"? Can anybody explain this? I want to know. Thank you!
'S' is a language, invented at Bell Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_(programming_language)) which has two major implementations. S-Plus, which is a commercial product, and R, which you know well. R was originally quite like S/S-Plus, but it's changed over time and diverged aways and now I believe the R README says R is 'not unlike' S. Consider, e.g., Python, which is a language (specified in documentation) with multiple implementations: CPython, PyPy, Jython, IronPython, etc. If R and S-Plus had identical functionality they would be different concrete realizations of the abstract 'S' language, but they're more than slightly different in practice. Not sure if that helps at all.... Michael
-- Iurie Malai +(373) 79288710 - Moldcell +(373) 67459710 - Unite [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Logic is irrelevant. You must simply embrace the FoRce. ---------------------------------------------- Obi Wan David L Carlson Associate Professor of Anthropology Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4352
-----Original Message----- From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces at r- project.org] On Behalf Of R. Michael Weylandt <michael.weylandt at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:48 PM To: Iurie Malai Cc: r-help at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] A general question: Is language S a component part of R? On Nov 5, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all! At least for me, the manual text has a contradiction. If R is much
like S,
in other words it is a "diverged" S, as Michael says, it can't
include
itself as a component part.
I'd think something like C/C++ -- the later includes the former ... mostly ... except where it doesn't. Michael
Regards, Iurie 2012/11/5 R. Michael Weylandt <michael.weylandt at gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Iurie Malai <iurie.malai at gmail.com>
wrote:
In the "Introduction and preliminaries" the "An Introduction to R"
manual
says about R: "... Among other things it has ... a well developed,
simple
and effective programming language (Called 'S') ... ". Now I'm a
little
confused. This means that language S is a component part of R? And
S is
not
free? But R is free? Or the mentioned S is only "a free
implementation"
of
the "true S"? Can anybody explain this? I want to know. Thank you!
'S' is a language, invented at Bell Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_(programming_language)) which has
two
major implementations. S-Plus, which is a commercial product, and R, which you know well. R was originally quite like S/S-Plus, but it's changed over time and diverged aways and now I believe the R README says R is 'not unlike' S. Consider, e.g., Python, which is a language (specified in documentation) with multiple implementations: CPython, PyPy, Jython, IronPython, etc. If R and S-Plus had identical functionality they would be different concrete realizations of the abstract 'S'
language,
but they're more than slightly different in practice. Not sure if that helps at all.... Michael
-- Iurie Malai +(373) 79288710 - Moldcell +(373) 67459710 - Unite [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-
guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting- guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20121105/fa2eb015/attachment.pl>
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 5, 2012, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 06/11/12 09:40, Iurie Malai wrote:
So, R (as a language) can be viewed as an extended S language (S + some improvements)? And the R environment includes this (extended) language + extensions?
R has lots of similarities but it isn't "just" extended S!!! it has many better features grammatically. R packaging to low level language integration being small set of differences. I recommend you to read the R book by the inventor of S, John Chambers, (ACM award recipient) to understand the fundamental differences: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Software-Data-Analysis-Prt ogramming-Statistics/dp/0387759352 S/S+ is a commercial product. R community and academics provides much larger and high quality/reliable open source alternative to this and yet let anyone use it for free, as in freedom, even if you are nasty person, you are allowed to practice this.
Are others getting as sick of this silly, pedantic and completely irrelevant pseudo-scholasticism as I am?
What did you contribute to world accept making toxic comments on the list of one of the largest open source academic software on the planet? No cookies for you, go home.