[Rd] Programming Tools CTV

[Max Kuhn]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis
<Achim.Zeileis at uibk.ac.at> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote:
>
>> I've had a lot of requests for additions to the reproducible research
>> task view that fall into a grey area (to me at least).
>>
>> For example, roxygen2 is a tool that broadly enable reproducibility
>> but I see it more as a tool for better programming. I'm about to check
>> in a new version of the task view that includes packrat and
>> checkpoint, as they seem closer to reproducible research, but also
>> feel like coding tools.
>>
>> There are a few other packages that many would find useful for better
>> coding: devtools, testthat, lintr, codetools, svTools, rbenchmark,
>> pkgutils, etc.
>>
>> This might be some overlap with the HPC task view. I would think that
>> rJava, Rcpp and the like are better suited there but this is arguable.
>>
>> The last time I proposed something like this, Martin deftly convinced
>> me to be the maintainer. It is probably better for everyone if we
>> avoid that on this occasion.
>>
>> * Does anyone else see the need for this?
>>
>> * What other packages fit into this bin?
>>
>> * Would anyone like to volunteer?
>
>
> Max, thanks for the suggestion. We had a somewhat related proposal on R-help
> from Luca Braglia a couple of months ago, suggesting a "Package Development"
> task view:
> https://mailman.stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2014-July/069454.html
>
> He put up some ideas on Github:
> https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView
>
> When Luca asked me (ctv maintainer) and Dirk (HPC task view maintainer) for
> feedback off-list, I replied that it is important that task views are
> focused in order to be useful and maintainable. My feeling was that
> "PackageDevelopment" was too broad and also "ProgrammingTools" is still too
> board, I think. This could mean a lot of things/tools to a lot of people.
>
> But maybe it would be to factor out some aspect that is sharp and clear(er)?
> Or split it up into bits where there are (more or less) objectively clear
> criteria for what goes in and what does not?

It's funny that you said that. As I was updating the RR CTV, it
realized what a beast it is right now. I thought about making a github
project earlier today that would have more detailed examples and
information.

I see two problems with that as the *sole* solution.

First, it is divorced from CRAN CTV and that is a place that people
know and will look. I had no idea of Luca's work for this exact
reason.

Secondly, might be intimidating for new R users who, I think, are the
targeted cohort for the CTVs.

How about a relatively broad definition that is succinct in content
with a link to a github repos?

Thanks,

Max