On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Anand Avati <av...@gluster.org> wrote:
> 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). > User doesn't write spark bindings. Users write scripts. I.e. exactly what i've shown. And we (I am confident) are ok with some generics passed around in Mahout's guts.We probably should expect to be ok with much bigger complexity in fact than this. BTW Spark rdd type is RDD[K:ClassTag] as well. nobody yet complained. not a single time. For all their list activity. > > > > 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. > Ok. I apologize. i just assumed you were at different level of familiarity with both Mahout and distributed stacks. I did not mean to discourage sincere search for answers.
