Dear Experts, Thanks to all those who responded! More requests for suggestions/thoughts:
Along with the above conventions/styles of writing code (as provided in your links), there is always a tug of war on agreement on the scope/depth of a program.. Also, there is a carry-over of Java- / C|C++ - style of programming techniques to catch/trap errors. R programming software inherently has very nice error trap mechanisms etc, which obviate explicit error trap programming in many cases. So, while one does agree that programs with error trap mechanisms are more robust, the key question remains about drawing the line between simplicity of a program versus complex "robust" program. "Simplicity" helps when there is a resource crunch and verifying/validating "robust" programs would require users/teams to have deeper knowledge of R, which may not always be available! Would highly appreciate your ideas on ways to improving code quality, easier code verification under resource crunch situations. Regards, Santosh On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, vioravis <viora...@gmail.com> wrote: > Check this out: > > http://www1.maths.lth.se/help/R/RCC/ > > -- > View this message in context: > http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/R-program-writing-standard-practices-tp3588716p3588911.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
