|
|
|
|
|
by bonadrag
760 days ago
|
|
It's sad to see the downfall of R. I still use R a lot interactively, but Python takes at least 50% of the share. R had a good run, and IMO they still have some packages that are just too good to see it languishing into the future, notably the package data.table. I have not come across a better library for data manipulation, in R or Python. The syntax is excellent and it is faster than most alternatives, especially the popular ones. I think an important factor that contributed to R's downfall is the decreasing hype around data science, as well as the fact that the core base of R users do not have a background in the STEM fields, but rather the humanities and social sciences. I do believe that the R community of developers are dedicated and perhaps, in relative terms, are more involved with their projects than a typical Python developer. But that's not enough, the sheer numbers of Python developers eclipses R's and that is too hard to overcome. |
|
But in the academic world (I'm in bioinformatics)... There seems to be nothing but R, in my experience. I don't really like that, because we have Snakemake and a lot of ML stuff, all Python, and the R people have a barrier to get started. I myself associate R with "just scripts and notebooks". Never do the R people seem to make anything into a well maintainable module. They make the notebook, use the build-in R functions and then their work is done. It seems to be different in the Python world where I see people writing modules that are "re-useable assets", and then those are used in notebooks for data science. This is probably my industry bias and perhaps Python-using academics also never make packages.
I guess also that there is no such a thing as poetry in R? I'm not entirely sure...