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 <vioravis@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]]

