3 ms·

> There are also lots of libraries but the quality of the documentation is often sub par. One thing I think R does not get enough credit for is really strong e

> There are also lots of libraries but the quality of the documentation is often sub par. One thing I think R does not get enough credit for is really strong enforcement of documentation. If you want to get a package in CRAN it is going to be more work to not document your library than to just document it correctly. As a result nearly every R package has very solid documentation, including a well formatted pdf manual, a series of "Vignettes" that show how to use the library, and excellent in-interpreter documentation.

vasili111 5y ago
R has superb documentation. I miss it with Python.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  I don't know what libraries you're refering to. But most of the time, they barely document what they do. By barely I mean: - parameters documentation can be understood only if you actually know the theory behind what the library documents. One may say that it's a good thing in the sense it prevents one to shoot himself in the foot but for discoverability, that's painful. I've done basic stuff such as GLM, LDA, PCA,... For example, there are several ways to do PCA's but which one do you choose ? Not everybody know the theory behind each PCA's formulation... - examples are usually very limited and don't show what the library can do. For example, plots (the one from the base library) are really not well documented. Examples are really scarce and don't even show the graphics themselves. - The package federation (not exactly documentation) is really bad : there are lots of library that overlap, that redefines symbols here and there without telling, etc. So R documentation is so so... It feels like it suffers from lots of math explanation I've seen : a strong will to write the minimum possible which makes everything hard to get into. I like R but documentation is not a strong point. Ecosystem is.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > Not everybody know the theory behind each PCA's formulation... It's a language meant for a specific domain. Expecting domain knowledge in said domain is not a failing - it's logical.

vasili111 5y ago

R has superb documentation. I miss it with Python.

wiz21c 5y ago
I don't know what libraries you're refering to. But most of the time, they barely document what they do. By barely I mean: - parameters documentation can be understood only if you actually know the theory behind what the library documents. One may say that it's a good thing in the sense it prevents one to shoot himself in the foot but for discoverability, that's painful. I've done basic stuff such as GLM, LDA, PCA,... For example, there are several ways to do PCA's but which one do you choose ? Not everybody know the theory behind each PCA's formulation... - examples are usually very limited and don't show what the library can do. For example, plots (the one from the base library) are really not well documented. Examples are really scarce and don't even show the graphics themselves. - The package federation (not exactly documentation) is really bad : there are lots of library that overlap, that redefines symbols here and there without telling, etc. So R documentation is so so... It feels like it suffers from lots of math explanation I've seen : a strong will to write the minimum possible which makes everything hard to get into. I like R but documentation is not a strong point. Ecosystem is.
- krageon 5y ago
  > Not everybody know the theory behind each PCA's formulation... It's a language meant for a specific domain. Expecting domain knowledge in said domain is not a failing - it's logical.