Live data from Hacker News

Try R — A new online course, for free

oreilly.com

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#42

For anyone interest in R without a background in statistics: I would highly recommend learning the two in parallel (if not statistics first). R is first and foremost a language for statistical computing. You really aren't going get much out of it without working on some interesting data/stats problems. Plus for most hacker types I think being able to play with the statistics you're learning about with R can be a grea…

While it is predominantly a statistics language there is also a huge wealth of data manipulation capabilities in functions like plyr, aggregate, *apply, ave, subset, etc.

Just in terms of organizing data sets, ignoring any statistical analysis, R is fantastic.

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason I would put forward is that it's completely free and open source. That means that all your work is transferable and usable by anybody, not just people who have the ability to use Matlab (including possibly your future self).

Out of curiosity, if you want open source, what's wrong with Octave or the likes?

I must admit, that sounds plausible and I'm not an expert with Matlab or Octave, but I understand the compatibility is reasonable but nowhere near complete. There seem to be a pretty good number of problems discussed here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3534867/why-when-should-i...

But really I just feel like (certainly in my field) the open source community around R is huge and thriving and it's a better bet than Octave in terms of that.

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#45

I do most of my stats work in Matlab, why should I use R?

Don't. I've used both extensively (though not for statistics). R's syntax is a little more C-like and consistent than MATLAB's - however the biggest difference is documentation. R's, like most open source documentation, is rather terse and often very unsatisfactory. This gets especially apparent once you get into 3rd party libraries and use things like Bioconductor. You’ll have no idea how things are designed to be u…

This pretty much perfectly illustrates my comment below, pointing out that these sorts of recommendations are entirely subjective and useless.

Many of your points are quite subjective. I could do the same thing with Matlab. For instance, I find it mind boggling that anyone could get anything done when you have to devote a separate file to every single functions. That seems incomprehensible to me. And yet, I realize that that's probably a mostly subjective thing that you get used to.

Personally, I find R's documentation excellent. When people complain about it, it's usually because they have mistaken it for a tutorial. It's not. It's documentation.

Without any data, I seriously doubt your claim that Matlab has a much larger user base. (There is considerably more activity in R on StackOverflow than in Matlab.)

Your complaint about matrices, lists and data frames is similar. Data frames exist for the same reason that there's a mean() function: a columnar data structure that holds differently data types in each column comes up so often and is considered so useful that it is built in.

pandas in Python was developed in a way that went out of its way to specifically _mimic_ these data structures because data frames are considered such a vital aspect of R.

And keep in mind that these criticisms are all coming from someone who _also_ recommended against switching...!

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#47
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't. I've used both extensively (though not for statistics). R's syntax is a little more C-like and consistent than MATLAB's - however the biggest difference is documentation. R's, like most open source documentation, is rather terse and often very unsatisfactory. This gets especially apparent once you get into 3rd party libraries and use things like Bioconductor. You’ll have no idea how things are designed to be u…

This pretty much perfectly illustrates my comment below, pointing out that these sorts of recommendations are entirely subjective and useless. Many of your points are quite subjective. I could do the same thing with Matlab. For instance, I find it mind boggling that anyone could get anything done when you have to devote a separate file to every single functions. That seems incomprehensible to me. And yet, I realize t…

You make good points, however I have to take issue with the documentation.

> When people complain about it, it's usually because they have mistaken it for a tutorial. It's not. It's documentation.

I don't really see the distinction. Documentation is supposed to explain to you how to use the code. You can call it whatever you want. If it's through a tutorial, then why not. R - and especially the non-standard packages you download through CRAN - have very terse documentation that barely explain how each function works on it's own, and much less how it works in the context of the rest of the package. You can't just tell the user what goes into the black box and what comes out and expect people to be able to use your software.

Sure they're are vignettes (I think that's the term), but they're really inadequate b/c they only scratch the surface of how the package is meant to be used.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. I've spent soooo many hours fighting with R documentation trying to figure out how to get what I needed done. Sometimes months later I would find out there is a much better way to do something that simply was not explained anywhere. I'm OK at R now, but I went through a lot of pain to get to where I am now. I'd never wish it on anyone else.

My experience with MATLAB on the other hand has always been very pleasant. I spent like 3 hours going over the tutorial on how to use it (much better then R's "Introduction to R") and I hit the ground running. When I needed something a quick search through the help or online always turned up results.

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not having this problem in Opera... I'm running version 12.11

Yup, Opera 12.11 on Debian Testing x86_64. _ and - result in - = and + result in + This is so odd...

Oh, I'm on Windows... maybe a platform depended bug?

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#49
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very, very good point. Though, many of the functions that R provides just won't make any sense at all if you don't have an intuition for the statistics behind it. I have found myself reading the papers published about specific functions in order to understand the results. Do you have any resources that you suggest for beginners in statistics looking to learn on their own?

You probably can't go wrong with the Introduction to Statistics class from Udacity http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/st101/CourseRev/1

After that you can take the AI course on Udacity.

Re: Try R — A new online course, for free

#50
I've been using R extensively for the past 12 months and have achieved a high level of comfort with the language. Now I find myself at a wall because of my lack of math and statistics background. I've taken R as far as I can, or put more properly, R has taken me as far as I can go without learning more math.

With that said, I have little reason to use R right now except for it's excellent plotting ability with ggplot2. Otherwise for data munging, wrangling, connecting to databases, doing unit testing, etc - R is a giant PITA. Better to stick to Python for that. And as I learn D3, I think I'll use R even less for visualization.

Therefore R will only be valuable to me once I can harness it's power for data mining and machine learning, which is it's killer feature, IMHO.

Post reply on HN