Oh, it’s very common unless you basically only use < 5 packages that are completely stable and no longer actively developed: packages break backwards compatibility all the time, in small and in big ways, and version pinning in R categorically does not work as well as in Python, despite all the issues with the latter. People joke about the complex packaging ecosystem in Python but at least there is such a thing. R has no equivalent. In Python, if you have a versioned lockfile, anybody can redeploy your code unless a system dependency broke. In R, even with an ‘renv’ lockfile, installing the correct packages version is a crapshoot, and will frequently fail. Don’t get me wrong, ‘renv’ has made things much better (and ‘rig’ and PPM also help in small but important ways). But it’s still dire. At work we are facing these issues every other week on some code base.
Lays the foundation (get it?) for who the people are and what they've built.
Then explains how the current thing they are building is a result of the previous thing. It feels that they actually want this problem solved for everyone because they have experienced how good the solution feels.
Then tells us about the teams (pretty big names with complex systems) that have already used it.
All of these wrapped in good writing that appeals to developers/founders. Landing page is great too!
Nobody is doing that. Analogies are drawing rough outlines in the thought-space[0], they aren't a definition. As such, they are helpful.
--
[0] - Or latent space, if I want to make an analogy inside the analogy apologia.
Sorry to bite your head off, but the reason that I'm passionate about this topic is, and I'm not joking, young earth Creationism. An analogy like the grandparent is something simple to grasp by many people, and then the Creationists can quickly turn around and say, "Well you see how biology is like a computer; somebody built a computer; therefore, God created us in six days, 6000 years ago."
DNA: file.c
polymerase: gcc (transcribes DNA→RNA)
RNA: file.o file.m file
(the last one is mRNA)
ribosome: ./file (translates mRNA→Protein)
protein: (program in RAM)
epigenome: (program in RAM changes file.c)
RNA world: (different file.o's messing with
each other by some unknown program,
eventually giving rise to stable
file.c files)
Biology does not act like a computer. You cannot reduce biology to an operating system
If this is not the way to remove workflow friction, what is?
I’m wary of software engineers coming over the bioinformatics because they never have the domain expertise required to make meaningful contributions, and yet many think they know everything.
> “Tell me, Rand, what killed all these clicks?”
> I’m going to tell you every one of the major search, social, and content platforms has an incentive to keep you there. LinkedIn wants to keep you on LinkedIn. Twitter wants to keep you on Twitter.
Let me throw out another one. People have learned that they'll regret clicking. The incentive to get as many clicks as possible and no incentive to have anything there for them once they do click, except a bunch of in-your-face ads that make it impossible to read the "content", has perhaps made us all pause before clicking.