3 ms·

There are different qualities. Code quality and quality of the functionality. In R you more packages that do what you expect (mathematically) but the implement

by nabla9 5y ago

There are different qualities. Code quality and quality of the functionality. In R you more packages that do what you expect (mathematically) but the implementation is inelegant and slow. Written by someone who knows exactly what they need and what the package should do, but has difficulty of writing it down. In python you many well implemented neat packages where the code is well implemented and performs well, but is not exactly doing what user need or skips important features because they are conceptually difficult.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tomrod 5y ago
> In R you more packages that do what you expect (mathematically) I disagree with this point explicitly. Many packages are not only poorly written programmatically and systemically, they also produce bad results in common cases and fail silently. This has been discussed well before on our very own YCombinator. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17308554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17308554 > is not exactly doing what user need or skips important features because they are conceptually difficult. This is why classes are cool. You can extend them, modify them, and so on. Perhaps we should teach this more to fellow data scientists. https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > This is why classes are cool You may be unaware, but there are vast similarities between the object system of R and Python, mostly due to their common inheritance from the Art of the Metaobject protocol. They look very different (generic functions vs classes), but they are equally extensible. The trouble with R's systems is that there's three of them, and people use whichever works without really understanding any of them, but all the tools are there.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Aware, yes. The point I made before was pointing out that you can implement what you want in Python relatively easy. That R has a wild west set of systems is exactly my point.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      I don't really get what you mean. You said, in the context of ensuring conceptually difficult parts of a model/method were implemented: > This is why classes are cool. You can extend them, modify them, and so on. Perhaps we should teach this more to fellow data scientists. I pointed out that both R and Python have similar object systems. > ou can implement what you want in Python relatively easy. I don't get why this is necessarily true, but I might be missing something. Can you clarify?
  - warlog 5y ago
    The only thing worse than an object system is...three object systems. I never quite know what is the cool kid implementation, and I don't even like oo.

by nabla9 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tomrod 5y ago

> In R you more packages that do what you expect (mathematically) I disagree with this point explicitly. Many packages are not only poorly written programmatically and systemically, they also produce bad results in common cases and fail silently. This has been discussed well before on our very own YCombinator. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17308554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17308554 > is not exactly doing what user need or skips important features because they are conceptually difficult. This is why classes are cool. You can extend them, modify them, and so on. Perhaps we should teach this more to fellow data scientists. https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> This is why classes are cool You may be unaware, but there are vast similarities between the object system of R and Python, mostly due to their common inheritance from the Art of the Metaobject protocol. They look very different (generic functions vs classes), but they are equally extensible. The trouble with R's systems is that there's three of them, and people use whichever works without really understanding any of them, but all the tools are there.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Aware, yes. The point I made before was pointing out that you can implement what you want in Python relatively easy. That R has a wild west set of systems is exactly my point.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    I don't really get what you mean. You said, in the context of ensuring conceptually difficult parts of a model/method were implemented: > This is why classes are cool. You can extend them, modify them, and so on. Perhaps we should teach this more to fellow data scientists. I pointed out that both R and Python have similar object systems. > ou can implement what you want in Python relatively easy. I don't get why this is necessarily true, but I might be missing something. Can you clarify?
- warlog 5y ago
  The only thing worse than an object system is...three object systems. I never quite know what is the cool kid implementation, and I don't even like oo.