Home » forums » LtU Forum Evaluating the Design of the R Language From our recent discussion on R, I thought this paper deserved its own post (ECOOP final version) by Floreal Morandat, Brandon Hill, Leo Osvald, and Jan Vitek; abstract: R is a dynamic language for statistical computing that combines lazy functional features and object-oriented programming. This rather unlikely linguistic cocktail would probably never have been prepared by computer scientists, yet the language has become surprisingly popular. With millions of lines of R code available in repositories, we have an opportunity to evaluate the fundamental choices underlying the R language design. Using a combination of static and dynamic program analysis we assess the success of different language features. Excerpts from the paper: R comes equipped with a rather unlikely mix of features. In a nutshell, R is a dynamic language in the spirit of Scheme or JavaScript, but where the basic data type is the vector. It is functional in that functions are ï¬rst-class values and arguments are passed by deep copy. Moreover, R uses lazy evaluation by default for all arguments, thus it has a pure functional core. Yet R does not optimize recursion, and instead encourages vectorized operations. Functions are lexically scoped and their local variables can be updated, allowing for an imperative programming style. R targets statistical computing, thus missing value support permeates all operations. One of our discoveries while working out the semantics was how eager evaluation of promises turns out to be. The semantics captures this with C[]; the only cases where promises are not evaluated is in the arguments of a function call and when promises occur in a nested function body, all other references to promises are evaluated. In particular, it was surprising and unnecessary to force assignments as this hampers building inï¬nite structures. Many basic functions that are lazy in Haskell, for example, are strict in R, including data type constructors. As for sharing, the semantics cleary demonstrates that R prevents sharing by performing copies at assignments. The R implementation uses copy-on-write to reduce the number of copies. With superassignment, environments can be used as shared mutable data structures. The way assignment into vectors preserves the pass-by-value semantics is rather unusual and, from personal experience, it is unclear if programmers understand the feature. ... It is noteworthy that objects are mutable within a function (since ï¬elds are attributes), but are copied when passed as an argument. But then, they do a corpus analysis to see what features programmers actually use! We don't do enough of these in PL; examples from the paper: R symbol lookup is context sensitive. This feature, which is neither Lisp nor Scheme scoping, is exercised in less than 0.05% of function name lookups...The only symbols for which this feature actually mattered in the Bioconductor vignettes are c and file, both popular variables names and built-in functions. Lazy evaluation is a distinctive feature of R that has the potential for reducing unnecessary work performed by a computation. Our corpus, however, does not bear this out. Fig. 14(a) shows the rate of promise evaluation across all of our data sets. The average rate is 90%. Fig. 14(b) shows that on average 80% of promises are evaluated in the ï¬rst function they are passed into. And so on. A lot of great data-driven insights.