3 ms·

> as.tibble(cbind(x,y,z)) %>% na.omit() Why on earth would anyone write that instead of na.omit(as.tibble(cbind(x,y,z)))? Baffles me.

• stared 9y ago
  ...reading from left to right for starter? It's why I adore %>% as code gets reads as a sequence of step-by-step instructions, of one forcing a reader to constantly keep switching between left-to-right and right-to-left.
  • lottin 9y ago
    f(x,y) reads "f of x and y". How do you say x %>% f(y) in words?
    • jamessb 9y ago
      Since "%>%" is the pipe operator I would guess "x pipe f of y", or "x pipe to f of y"
      • Tarq0n 9y ago
        Hadley Wickham suggests using "then" for pipes. SO we take object x, then perform f(y) with it.
• tincholio 9y ago
  Hi, author here. I just find it much more intuitive, like unix pipes, or Clojure's threading macros. Nested calls are more confusing to me. Though it should have probably been better as cbind(...) %>% as.tibble() %>% na.omit...
  • tincholio 9y ago
    And it's fixed now
• confounded 9y ago
  Alternatively, x %>% bind_cols(y, z) %>% as.tibble() %>% na.omit() Makes the order of execution a little clearer (and uses more dplyr conventions). I still nest functions when working interactively with a REPL, but for code I'll have to reread in the future, the pipes save me much head scratching. Death to the pyramid of doom.
  • tincholio 9y ago
    That's indeed a nicer style
  • minimaxir 9y ago
    For emphasis, bind_cols is a dplyr function (meaning it gets the speed boost from using Rcpp, albeit not much difference when adding a few columns), while cbind is a base function which does not. dplyr nowadays obsoletes most of the basic building blocks of data frame construction, although they are hidden in the docs.
• minimaxir 9y ago
  See previous discussion on the perks of dplyr/margittr piping: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15119957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15119957