Author: Kevin Feasel

Bob Muenchen notes a structural conflict between R and its most common set of packages:

There’s a common theme in many of the sections above: a task that is hard to perform using base a R function is made much easier by a function in the dplyr package. That package, and its relatives, are collectively known as the tidyverse. Its functions help with many tasks, such as selecting, renaming, or transforming variables, filtering or sorting observations, combining data frames, and doing by-group analyses. dplyr is such a helpful package that Rdocumentation.org shows that it is the single most popular R package (as of 3/23/2017.) As much of a blessing as these commands are, they’re also a curse to beginners as they’re more to learn. The main packages of dplyr, tibble, tidyr, and purrr contain a few hundred functions, though I use “only” around 60 of them regularly. As people learn R, they often comment that base R functions and tidyverse ones feel like two separate languages. The tidyverse functions are often the easiest to use, but not always; its pipe operator is usually simpler to use, but not always; tibbles are usually accepted by non-tidyverse functions, but not always; grouped tibbles may help do what you want automatically, but not always (i.e. you may need to ungroup or group_by higher levels). Navigating the balance between base R and the tidyverse is a challenge to learn.

Interesting read.  As Bob notes in the comments, he’s still a fan of the tidyverse, but it’s important to recognize that there are pain points there.

Adnan Fiaz reviews conference abstracts for patterns:

Certainly an interesting graph! It may have been better to show the proportions instead of counts as the number of abstracts in each category are not equal. Nevertheless, the conclusion remains the same. The words “r” and “data” are clearly the most common. However, what is more interesting is that abstracts in the “yes” category use certain words significantly more often than abstracts in the “no” category and vice versa (more often because a missing bar doesn’t necessarily mean a zero observation). For example, the words “science”, “production” and “performance” occur more often in the “yes” category. Vice versa, the words “tools”, “product”, “package” and “company(ies)” occur more often in the “no” category. Also, the word “application” occurs in its singular form in the “no” category and in its plural form in the “yes” category. Certainly, at EARL we like our applications to be plural, it is in the name after all.

Granted, this is only abstracts for one conference, but it’s an interesting idea.