Ha ha, I love that this is your only comment here! Thanks for all your work on R.
I came here with sleeves rolled up to defend the language, but was pleasantly surprised to find it was already being done much better than I could have.
It's interesting to see how R elicits such a reaction to some programmers. I think it's frequently misunderstood, and R needs to be used in a particular way to allow it to fly.
When I've tried to recreate analyses in Python or Julia, they have nowhere near the fluency of R. It isn't possible to know this if you're messing around with if statements and other procedural methods of achieving things which are better suited to other languages, but rather when crunching data for analysis and graphically visualising the results.
I also understand that it's due to R's lisp-y-ness that allows us to have tidyverse in the first place.
Question for Hadley - there have been a couple of projects to fuse the speed of data.table and tidyverse. What do you think of this aim and are you tempted to change tidyverse to get to the speeds of data.table, or would that require too much of a fundamental change?
Oh, I feel a bit silly now! I'd seen a couple of attempts to combine the two, but didn't realise this one was official. It looks great. I have an analysis coming up that borders between dplyr and data.table in terms of size, so will check it out then!
I came here with sleeves rolled up to defend the language, but was pleasantly surprised to find it was already being done much better than I could have.
It's interesting to see how R elicits such a reaction to some programmers. I think it's frequently misunderstood, and R needs to be used in a particular way to allow it to fly.
When I've tried to recreate analyses in Python or Julia, they have nowhere near the fluency of R. It isn't possible to know this if you're messing around with if statements and other procedural methods of achieving things which are better suited to other languages, but rather when crunching data for analysis and graphically visualising the results.
I also understand that it's due to R's lisp-y-ness that allows us to have tidyverse in the first place.
Question for Hadley - there have been a couple of projects to fuse the speed of data.table and tidyverse. What do you think of this aim and are you tempted to change tidyverse to get to the speeds of data.table, or would that require too much of a fundamental change?