Talk:R (programming language)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Weight on language over environment in opening sentence(s)

Current article: "R is a programming language".

First line of the (official) R Project's main page: "R is a free software environment for statistical computing and graphics."
First line of the (official) R Project's about page: "R is a language and environment for statistical computing and graphics."

(Note: emphasis added by me in the above quotations.)

The current introduction exclusively mentions the language identity in the opening definition, and first paragraphs. Only later is the environment mentioned, seemingly as a subordinate issue. That doesn't fit with the definitions/descriptions given by the R Project themselves.

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC))

Of course, this article is explicitly about the programming language aspect, but maybe that shouldn't be the case. Maybe it should be moved to "R (computing)", say. Alternatively, what about adding a new "R (software environment)" article to complement the existing one??

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC))

typical

A recent edit summary says it is not typical to use R from the command line. Is there a WP:RS for that? Does that mean by number of people, or amount of time it is used by different people? (That is, it is weighted by usage/person.) This might also affect the above discussion about language vs. environment. Note, for example, C is a programming language, but Visual C is an environment for developing C programs. Gah4 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the intent of the original phrasing was that R is typically used interactively in a REPL; whether that REPL is launched through the main CLI executable or RStudio doesn't seem particularly important. bonob (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I know about REPL, but didn't recognize the acronym, so had to look it up. I didn't read the original that way, but maybe. Gah4 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok

Function Sjsjsksjdh Jddjj 2409:4063:6C8D:C9D:0:0:B28B:4808 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Yeah 86.2.214.41 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

footnote numbering

The first footnote I see is #6. What happened to #1-#5? Socialresearch (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Socialresearch: They're in the infobox. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Socialresearch (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

useR! conference list

I had just done some work to try to improve the useR! section but I am not sure if the conference needs so much space, especially with the list of previous venues. The initial addition of the useR! section did not include the list[1] and when it was added, it was shorter only listing conferences up until 2012.[2] Since the article does not highlight specific useR! conferences, it might be best to remove the list entirely. What do you all think? Moon motif (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Separating out Milestones section content?

Should the content of the Milestones section be separated out? I feel like parts of it are more suited to the History section like R becoming part of the official GNU project in release 0.60 or the Features section like the pipe operator |> and anonymous function shortcut syntax in release 4.1.0. This is even more opinion-based but some of the included milestones don't seem like actual milestones? I really don't mean to offend anyone but including release 3.3.3's deprecation of Windows XP support or 2.11's 64-bit Windows support does not seem historic? (I had not heard of R then so I do not know for sure but it seems normal to deprecate old operating systems that have been succeeded and support new architectures) Considering how much real estate the Milestones section takes up, I'm unsure of how to navigate this. Also, I don't feel comfortable being single judge to decide what releases to or not to keep. Moon motif (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I support trimming it and moving it to the history section. The selection of things to include seems like blatant original research right now. We should be basing it on what changes are covered in sources beyond the R changelog. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved Comparison with alternatives/Python to talk

@Newystats: I moved this paragraph to talk:

Comparison with alternatives/Python

Python and R are interpreted, dynamically typed programming languages with duck typing that can be extended by importing packages. Python is a general-purpose programming language while R is specifically designed for doing statistical analysis. Python has a BSD-like license in contrast to R's GNU General Public License but still permits modifying language implementation and tools.

Why is R being compared with Python? Python is a general-purpose programming language, but R is a specific-purpose programming language. This paragraph is comparing an apple with an orange. R_(programming_language)#Interfaces says you can embed R to Python by installing Rpy2. The implication is you can have both full Python and full R.

You can also embed full Python and other languages in R, as described in Yihui Xie; Joseph J. Allaire; Garrett Grolemund (30 December 2023), R Markdown: The Definitive Guide, Chapman & Hall, Wikidata Q76441281

Regarding Python has a BSD-like license in contrast to R's GNU General Public License but still permits modifying language implementation and tools.:

1. This contrast is immaterial.
2. This sentence is the only one that is cited. The book title of the citation is intriguing: "Python vs. R for Data Science." However, the paragraph doesn't paraphrase the book's thesis.

Timhowardriley (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timhowardriley: I object to removing the section on "Comparison with alternatives". If you think it's biased, please propose changes that remove the bias.

Wikipedia has many comparisons like this that provide a valuable service. Only yesterday I got substantial help with something I was doing from a crudely similar comparison on Wikipedia. In my judgment deleting the entire "Comparison with alternatives" section degrades the quality of this article.

I'm restoring that entire section including the discussion of Python. I plan to add other material, but I'm not exactly certain what just yet.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Python and R are the two leading programming languages in data science and the comparison is very frequently discussed in relevant sources, so I think it makes sense to include it here. However I agree that the section as it stands is pretty shallow. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding If you think it's biased, please propose changes that remove the bias.: Comparisons between products and services are best handled through a table. For a narrative comparison to be unbiased, it requires a lot of words to fairly describe each differentiating characteristic. Most importantly, Wikipedia articles need to be reliably sourced. As Wikipedia editors of this product, we are inherently biased. Instead, a reliable source (like Consumer Reports) needs to compare R with a competitor, then we can paraphrase that material. On the other hand, simply name-dropping the NY Times is misleading. I got past the pay-lock once to read the article. I remember it being very supportive R and having only a mention of SAS. Moreover, it quoted SAS's marketing manage who refuted the SAS disparagements. The Comparison of statistical packages link in the "See also" section is the proper way to compare R with its competitors. Regarding I'm restoring the ... discussion of Python: Please refute any of my claims that this is a lousy paragraph. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding I plan to add other material, but I'm not exactly certain what just yet.: The cart is in front of the horse. Wikipedia articles need to be reliably sourced. Step one is to discover something relevant in your secondary research. Step two is to paraphrase that material into the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, it's original research. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Accepted re. deleting the "Comparison with alternatives". Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

References