I would never willingly use RStudio for my own work 1. Despite that caveat, I do love RStudio for teaching R to students. RStudio's best feature is its normative power; by virtue of becoming the de facto standard for R GUIs, RStudio has the power to promote good habits. They've already done wonders for reproducibility with their integration with knitr. If they adopted a few more tweaks, they could set future waves of R users off on the right track.

Knitr and Reproducibility

For instance, their integration with knitr is the greatest step taken towards reproducibility in statistics. Read this[http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.18][paper]] for some examples of how switching to RMarkdown has improved introductory stats classes.

I remember the dark days before knitr when I manually saved plots and copied tables of numbers into my reports and homeworks. As a TA I would receive code students had pasted into Word that I knew couldn't be run.

Then I saw the light, and used knitr for my own work. However, it was still a pain; I had to write my code in notepad2 and then try and parse R errors and LaTeX errors. It was not a process I would recommend for an introductory stats course: there would be a violent uprising among the students.

Now of course, there's RMarkdown which provides a user-friendly interface to knitr. I have a few crotchety complaints about it not being LaTeX, but for the most part it's a pain-free, intuitive process. That's the important part: if there's a button to compile the file students will do it and in the process they'll ingrain a habit of reproducibility.

The Script Window

But not everything is done as well as the knitr integration. For instance, a design decision to emphasize the script window would be brilliant. Before widespread adoption of RStudio I often would find students typing their work, stream-of-consciousness style, into the console. Whenever they made a mistake they'd retype it (all) in. Needless to say, this resulted in lots of frustration and a bevy of unusual bugs. With RStudio it's easier to show them the script window and demonstrate better work-flows. However, the default screen doesn't even include the script window so I still see students working only on the console.

Now imagine if these students opened up RStudio the first time and saw a huge script window with just a small console underneath. A few lines of comments explaining how to use the script would be all that's needed to get students started. It would make good work-flow habits the default.


Another aspect that could be improved on is RStudio's handling of workspaces. Workspaces save your current working environment: the functions, data frames, variables, and other objects that you're using in the R session. The problem that I have with workspaces is that they're solving a problem which only exists if you're doing things sub-optimally.

The mess I saw students falling into with workspaces was that they would keep the same environment all year, filling it up with all sorts of junk. This lead to errors when using variables with old initializations like using "uninitialized" variables or working with the wrong data set3, 4. It also leads to nonreproducable results if their scripts rely on the state of their workspace. The first thing I check for when a students' knitr file fails to compile is to make sure they aren't relying on the state of their current R session; many of them do the work on the console and then expect to "save" the results in the knitr doc.

The only argument I can make for using workspaces is to save time. If you're working with MCMC runs or cross-validation estimates you don't want to rerun your procedure every time you work on the code. Thus being able to recover your results would be nice. However, the solution is not workspaces, it's writing out temporary files. There's no need to save the whole environment, just the parts you can't easily replicate.

Switching to disabling workspaces by default would be a good idea. Users who find a purpose for workspaces and turn them on, but the vast majority can safely and happily ignore this "feature".

Build System

Speaking of temporary files, this leads to a stylistic issue. I had a hard time understanding students' code for their final projects because they'd write everything in a single script.

Instead of a monolithic script, a modular5 approach can help. You can have a script that cleans the data, one that fits a model, and then several which make graphs and tables. Each writes out temporary files with the data needed for later steps. This keeps every script file understandable and facilitates collaboration and exploration as alternative models or graphics can be easily worked on in parallel.

Of course, to implement this modular approach, you also need some way of keeping things up-to-date. The typical approach is asking yourself the question "if I change this file, what else needs to update?" and then manually rerunning the appropriate scripts. This is not a great idea as you will always forget something.

For myself, I use the Ruby utility Rake to automate this process. I simply document the dependencies of my steps and Rake will rerun only those steps which are necessary to keep everything up-to-date (defined as all outputs have later timestamps than their respective inputs).

RStudio seems to integrate with the canonical build system make for projects. However, more could be done to introduce newcomers to these tools.



I'm a bit of an emacs snob.


It was a dark time.


Because they had to name every data set "data"


Or they used the "attach" function. Why do people keep teaching/using this function? It can only end in tears. Before anyone says it "saves keystrokes" I'd like to point out that any half decent editor (even RStudio) has auto-complete.


I go a step further and I generally write different steps in my preferred language for the task:

  • munging -> python
  • numerics -> julia
  • graphics -> R