On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:01:54PM -0400, Roger D. Peng wrote: > One important thing to remember, which I think some more > experienced programmers may forget, is that R is two things---a > programming language and an *interactive* system for statistics > and graphics. Maintaining the "interactive-ableness" of R may > have imposed certain design choices. I personally think the > current S4 system of generics/methods is quite suitable for both > the "programming" and "interactive" sides of R.
That's certainly a valid point. A more "standard" kind of object orientation does not necessarily impair interactive use, however. Python is no less usable interactively than R, for example. Best regards, Jan > Just $0.02. > > -roger > > Nathan Whitehouse wrote: > >Hi, > > A few comments from a fairly experienced R user who > >worked for several years on a R-based bioinformatics > >analysis framework. > > > > I don't want to misrepresent anyone's views, but... > > > > There are real disadvantages to the > >"objects-as-C-structs" and functions/methods which > >"mutate" based on argument type. i.e. S4. > > > > (1)Novices simply don't understand it. Students are > >trained in "standard" object-oriented technique and > >this wonkish offshoot(puritanical functional > >programming) just increases the information costs to > >using R and thus decreases the demand. -- +- Jan T. Kim -------------------------------------------------------+ | *NEW* email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | *NEW* WWW: http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/people/jtk | *-----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans >=-----* ______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
