Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512310106510.23979@thorin.ci.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: 2005-12-31T00:15:44Z
From: Achim Zeileis
Subject: [RsR] Traditional vs. lattice graphics
In-Reply-To: <17333.40699.343111.247017@stat.math.ethz.ch>
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Martin Maechler wrote:
> If novel plots are invented, they really ``should'' be done via
> grid graphics {or maybe via lattice panel functions using grid
> graphics}; but I'm not sure we will see such novel plots...
> OTOH, for really simple plots {lines, points,.. in only one
> 'panel'}, the use of lattice/grid does not add much value (I
> think) and actually may make it even make it considerably harder
> for "traditionalists" to add to such a graphic.
Yes, good point. To expand a little: Single panel plots that are
essentially of a scatter plot type, the base framework is usually
sufficient and easier to use. If, in addition, a grid implementation is
needed, it's usually easy to add. For multiple panel plots, grid/lattice
will probably provide better tools.
The advantage of having the single panel plots available in grid and not
only in base graphics, is that they can be easily re-used in multi-panel
plots. So personally, I usually start to write the single panel prototype
in base graphics, then transform it to grid and possibly re-use it in
other functions.
Z