I’ve not been too exposed to statistics programming in the last few year, however, sometimes it couldn’t be avoided – and R couldn’t be avoided! (I still have too much self-esteem to think about falling back to Excel, even for the simplest things.)
I don’t hate R and I don’t like R; it just strikes me as very strange. Often, the syntax strikes me as odd and above all, the multitude of ways to express the same thing reminds of my little Perl experience. Anyway, I have subscribed to the Coursera R course for fun and in hope to somehow “get the better of R”, to grok in on a deep level or to at least get a more profound idea as to why I don’t like it ;)
Anyway, here is a language construct which is very strange and a little bit absurd, no whatever how often I think about it. It’s called partial matching. To put it bluntly, partial matching makes it possible to avoid spelling out the whole name of an element of a list in oder to access it. Let’s have a look.
Now let’s access
a_is_the_first_letter! That’s the normal way:
However, you could make your life a lot “easier”:
Well, the crucial question is: what happens if the prefix of your partial matching is not unique?
1 2 3 4
The result is
1 2 3 4
Here the prefix is unique again. Hooray!
Funny, isn’t it? I don’t like it, though. Why? Because it’s not ‘obvious’.
You need to know that feature beforehand, otherwise the fact that an
accidentally misspelled field is handled the same way as a non-unique
field prefix (both returning
NULL) is awkward, to say the least.
It’s nearly as though I said to the R interpreter: ‘Give me field
xy or any field that is somehow similar… or just do what you fucking
want (= return NULL)!’ Anyway, it introduces complexity and indeterminism into the code.
There is another twist to partial matching. Of course, there is more than one way to access a field of a list. Making use of the double bracket syntax, that feature of partial matching is handled differently.
1 2 3
Using the double bracket field accessing method, partial matching is not the default. But R is perly so you still have a way to get that behavior in a different way:
At least I now have a better idea why I don’t really like R. It introduces a sort of laisser-faire programming which I consider too “inexact”. I mean, would you really want something like the following to be the future of programming:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7