On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Anand Avati <av...@gluster.org> wrote: > > > Also, if we did not have Keys in DRM, most of > > the code in the DSL need not have a type parameter, making it so much > > simpler for a first timer to read.. > > > > This is also something i absolutely not sure where it is coming from. > > Let's see: > > Mahout expression | R expression > > A %*% B | A %*% B > A[, 5] | A(::,5) > cbind(A,B) | A cbind B > A * B | A * B > 1 / x | 1 /: x > t(A) | A.t > norm(A) | A.norm > colSums(A) | A.colSums > > Where is the "struggle" here ? > Not in this at all, but all over the place in sparkbindings (the backend of the DSL). > I suspect the real reason for all these questions is not architectural, but > rather simplification of H20 bindings. > > That is, probably, a really worthy question: are we ready to screw legacy > algorithm compatibility and existing bindings' merits just to make h2o > integration easier? This is a good question, but i am far from sure i would > vote "yes" here. > Well, sure. I would like to simplify H2O bindings to the extent I can (or simplify any task I do in any project). I expect not all questions might make sense for those who have a bigger context, but I still ask without hesitation.
