Re: [Rd] anonymous functions
I will stick my oar in here as a user to say that I find the \(x) syntax a bit
line-noise-ish.
David
> On 8 Dec 2020, at 00:05, Abby Spurdle wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should replace "cryptic-ness" from my last post, with
> "unnecessary cryptic-ness".
> Sometimes short symbolic expressions are necessary.
>
>
> P.S.
> Often, I wish I could write: f (x) = x^2.
> But that's replacement function syntax.
>
>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM Abby Spurdle wrote:
>>
>> I mostly agree with your comments on anonymous functions.
>>
>> However, I think the main problem is cryptic-ness, rather than succinct-ness.
>> The backslash is a relatively universal symbol within programming
>> languages with C-like (ALGOL-like?) syntax.
>> Where it denotes escape sequences within strings.
>>
>> Using the leading character for escape sequences, to define functions,
>> is like using integers to define floating point numbers:
>>
>>my.integer <- as.integer (2) * pi
>>
>> Arguably, the motive is more to be ultra-succinct than cryptic.
>> But either way, we get syntax which is difficult to read, from a
>> mathematical and statistical perspective.
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:04 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
>>> helpful in making
>>> code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
>>>
>>> Color me unimpressed.
>>> Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code"
>>> threads: in Fortran,
>>> in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for
>>> either elegant,
>>> readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth
>>> is that "short"
>>> is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else
>>> reading the code;
>>> or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were
>>> written. Minimal
>>> use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal,
>>> but creeps into
>>> many practiioner's code as well.
>>>
>>> People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are
>>> people typing code
>>> with their thumbs?
>>> I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many of
>>> my colleagues
>>> think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
>>>
>>> As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more
>>> readable. Every
>>> bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of
>>> comments or other
>>> documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line
>>> does, what about
>>> the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Terry M Therneau, PhD
>>> Department of Health Science Research
>>> Mayo Clinic
>>> thern...@mayo.edu
>>>
>>> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>>>
>>> __
>>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] anonymous functions
Sorry, I should replace "cryptic-ness" from my last post, with
"unnecessary cryptic-ness".
Sometimes short symbolic expressions are necessary.
P.S.
Often, I wish I could write: f (x) = x^2.
But that's replacement function syntax.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM Abby Spurdle wrote:
>
> I mostly agree with your comments on anonymous functions.
>
> However, I think the main problem is cryptic-ness, rather than succinct-ness.
> The backslash is a relatively universal symbol within programming
> languages with C-like (ALGOL-like?) syntax.
> Where it denotes escape sequences within strings.
>
> Using the leading character for escape sequences, to define functions,
> is like using integers to define floating point numbers:
>
> my.integer <- as.integer (2) * pi
>
> Arguably, the motive is more to be ultra-succinct than cryptic.
> But either way, we get syntax which is difficult to read, from a
> mathematical and statistical perspective.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:04 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
> wrote:
> >
> > “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
> > helpful in making
> > code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
> >
> > Color me unimpressed.
> > Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code"
> > threads: in Fortran,
> > in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for
> > either elegant,
> > readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth
> > is that "short"
> > is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else
> > reading the code;
> > or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were
> > written. Minimal
> > use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal,
> > but creeps into
> > many practiioner's code as well.
> >
> > People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are
> > people typing code
> > with their thumbs?
> > I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many of
> > my colleagues
> > think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
> >
> > As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more
> > readable. Every
> > bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of
> > comments or other
> > documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line
> > does, what about
> > the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Terry M Therneau, PhD
> > Department of Health Science Research
> > Mayo Clinic
> > thern...@mayo.edu
> >
> > "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
> >
> > __
> > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] anonymous functions
I mostly agree with your comments on anonymous functions.
However, I think the main problem is cryptic-ness, rather than succinct-ness.
The backslash is a relatively universal symbol within programming
languages with C-like (ALGOL-like?) syntax.
Where it denotes escape sequences within strings.
Using the leading character for escape sequences, to define functions,
is like using integers to define floating point numbers:
my.integer <- as.integer (2) * pi
Arguably, the motive is more to be ultra-succinct than cryptic.
But either way, we get syntax which is difficult to read, from a
mathematical and statistical perspective.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:04 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
> helpful in making
> code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
>
> Color me unimpressed.
> Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code" threads:
> in Fortran,
> in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for either
> elegant,
> readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth is
> that "short"
> is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else
> reading the code;
> or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were
> written. Minimal
> use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal,
> but creeps into
> many practiioner's code as well.
>
> People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are people
> typing code
> with their thumbs?
> I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many of
> my colleagues
> think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
>
> As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more
> readable. Every
> bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of
> comments or other
> documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line does,
> what about
> the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
>
>
> --
> Terry M Therneau, PhD
> Department of Health Science Research
> Mayo Clinic
> thern...@mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] anonymous functions
It is easier to understand a function if you can see the entire
function body at once on a page or screen and excessive verbosity
interferes with that.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
> helpful in making
> code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
>
> Color me unimpressed.
> Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code" threads:
> in Fortran,
> in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for either
> elegant,
> readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth is
> that "short"
> is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else
> reading the code;
> or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were
> written. Minimal
> use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal,
> but creeps into
> many practiioner's code as well.
>
> People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are people
> typing code
> with their thumbs?
> I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many of
> my colleagues
> think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
>
> As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more
> readable. Every
> bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of
> comments or other
> documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line does,
> what about
> the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
>
>
> --
> Terry M Therneau, PhD
> Department of Health Science Research
> Mayo Clinic
> thern...@mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Statistics & Software Consulting
GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] anonymous functions
Thanks for expressing this eloquently. I heartily agree.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel <
r-devel@r-project.org> wrote:
> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
> helpful in making
> code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
>
> Color me unimpressed.
> Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code"
> threads: in Fortran,
> in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for
> either elegant,
> readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth
> is that "short"
> is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else
> reading the code;
> or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were
> written. Minimal
> use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal,
> but creeps into
> many practiioner's code as well.
>
> People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are
> people typing code
> with their thumbs?
> I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many
> of my colleagues
> think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
>
> As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more
> readable. Every
> bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of
> comments or other
> documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line
> does, what about
> the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
>
>
> --
> Terry M Therneau, PhD
> Department of Health Science Research
> Mayo Clinic
> thern...@mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
--
"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of
public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to
the several States to take the most effectual measures for the
encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] anonymous functions
“The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be helpful in making
code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
Color me unimpressed.
Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code" threads: in Fortran,
in C, in Splus, ... The same old idea that "short" is a synonym for either elegant,
readable, or efficient is now being recylced in the tidyverse. The truth is that "short"
is actually an antonym for all of these things, at least for anyone else reading the code;
or for the original coder 30-60 minutes after the "clever" lines were written. Minimal
use of the spacebar and/or the return key isn't usually held up as a goal, but creeps into
many practiioner's code as well.
People are excited by replacing "function(" with "\("? Really? Are people typing code
with their thumbs?
I am ambivalent about pipes: I think it is a great concept, but too many of my colleagues
think that using pipes = no need for any comments.
As time goes on, I find my goal is to make my code less compact and more readable. Every
bug fix or new feature in the survival package now adds more lines of comments or other
documentation than lines of code. If I have to puzzle out what a line does, what about
the poor sod who inherits the maintainance?
--
Terry M Therneau, PhD
Department of Health Science Research
Mayo Clinic
thern...@mayo.edu
"TERR-ree THUR-noh"
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
