R devel - Dec 2020 - 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
therneau at mayo.edu

"TERR-ree THUR-noh"

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 at 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
> therneau at mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at 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]]

I don't disagree in principle, but the reality is users want shortcuts
and as a result various packages, in particular tidyverse, have been
providing them. Mostly based on formulas, mostly with significant
issues since formulas weren't designed for this, and mostly
incompatible (tidyverse ones are compatible within tidyverse but not
with others). And of course none work in sapply or lapply. Providing a
shorthand in base may help to improve this. You don't have to use it
if you don't want to, and you can establish coding standards that
disallow it if you like.

Best,

luke

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, 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?
>
>
>
-- 
Luke Tierney
Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
    Actuarial Science
241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:   luke-tierney at uiowa.edu
Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:  http://www.stat.uiowa.edu

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
<r-devel at 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
> therneau at mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at 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

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
<r-devel at 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
> therneau at mayo.edu
>
> "TERR-ree THUR-noh"
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel