Re: [R] R Style Guide -- Was Post-hoc tests in MASS using glm.nb

From: <>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:39:25 +1000

I used to think like that. However I have recently re-read John Chambers' "Software for Data Analysis" and now I'm starting to see the point.

S4 classes and methods do require you to plan your classes and methods well and the do impose a discipline that can seem rigid and unnecessary. But I have found that to program well you do need to exerceise a lot of discipline, mainly because it can take quite some time to spot all the inadequacies and even traps in your code that an ill-disciplined approach lets you get away with at first.

IMHO, of course. Perhaps you can all see the traps that elude me.


PS Rolf Turner? Respectful? Goodness, what's going on? :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Turner [] Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:34 AM
To: Venables, Bill (CMIS, Dutton Park)
Subject: Re: [R] R Style Guide -- Was Post-hoc tests in MASS using glm.nb

On 19/05/11 10:26, wrote:

> Most of [the Google style guide's] advice is very good (meaning I agree with it!) but some is a bit too much (for example, the blanket advice never to use S4 classes and methods - that's just resisting progress, in my view).

I must respectfully disagree with this view, and concur heartily with the style guide.
S4 classes and methods are a ball-and-chain that one has to drag along. See also
fortune("S4 methods"). :-)


         Rolf mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Thu 19 May 2011 - 00:42:42 GMT

This quarter's messages: by month, or sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

All messages

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 19 May 2011 - 22:00:08 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive