[ESS] feature request: shell support
spinuvit at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 23:25:11 CEST 2013
More I think about it more I am inclined towards adding it. The reason
is data pre-processing which is often done with one-line tools like sed
and awk. New pyed piper is coming in force http://code.google.com/p/pyp/.
I am still not sure I want to see it as part of ESS. In a long run
isolating our ess-inf into a separate package is a very good idea. Such
a package should come with a lot of load like support for eldoc,
documentation and auto-completion. So it's quite a lot of ESS to be
factored out and it is not easy without rewriting a lot of it.
>>> Rodney Sparapani on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:45:09 -0500 wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 03:07 PM, Andreas Leha wrote:
>> As I wrote the feature request, let me comment a bit.
>> I completely understand your point. And since (unfortunately) it won't
>> be me who implements shell support in ess, I of course accept your
>> That said, see my inline comments below.
> Hi Andreas:
> Well, I enjoy arguing more than actually working so see below...
>> Rodney Sparapani<rsparapa at mcw.edu> writes:
>>> >Well then... Although I am an ESS developer, this is only my
>>> >personal opinion. I too find myself writing Bourne shell scripts
>>> >(for the last 20 years now ;o) However, I feel that the emacs
>>> >community is well aware of the Bourne shell and its imitators.
>> Can you point to any emacs shell support, that comes close to what ess
>> can do for real (?) statistical languages in terms of connecting the
>> script with a process?
> No. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can't keep up with
> all of the different emacs modes that are floating around cyberspace.
>>> >IMHO the ESS developers want to fill the niche that
>>> >statisticians and statistical programmers/analysts find
>>> >in emacs. There are a lot of things that would be nice to
>>> >have that we are not going to be able to add due to time,
>>> >warm bodies, climate change, etc.
>> As also others have argued, shell scripting can be seen as being part of
>> the full statistical workflow. I assume, you'd not want to do your real
>> (?) statistical scripting without ess' support for sending code from
>> your script to the process. Why would you not want similar support for
>> the part of the data analysis, that is done in the shell?
>> So, the step to shell support, for me, is a natural one, the step to
>> climate change is not.
> My point is that as statisticians, we pick our battles. There is a
> reason that SAS and R are prevalent in statistics while other
> interactive languages like Perl and Python are not. I do agree that
> Bourne shell scripting is worth learning; but then I am a Linux/UNIX
> bigot who has seen the error of my OS/2 ways; lots of Windows
> folks would disagree.
>>> >When we get to that point (and I feel it is a ways off yet),
>>> >then we could re-consider. Normally, at this point, I would
>>> >say glibly "patches welcome". However, I don't think they
>>> >really are right now. Whenever we accept a patch, then we
>>> >end up maintaining it (except in the rare exception when we
>>> >can convince the author to stick around). So, I personally
>>> >am in no hurry; I would postpone this until the rewrite is
>>> >complete when we can consider what languages to add then.
>> This already sounds as if such a rewrite will definitely happen -- even
>> if ways off. That is nice.
> Yes, we have been talking about it, but talk is cheap ;o)
>>> >I have my doubts whether the Bourne shell will be able to compete
>>> >for attention with julia, polymode, SLIME[R] and/or whatever new
>>> >fangled flavor of the month the kids come up with. But that's
>>> >just the opinion of one eternal pessimist.
>> Given that you have done shell scripts for 20 years, you probably agree,
>> that shell scripting is not one of the 'new fangled flavor[s] of the
> I do. But, I meant it in the mindshare sense. IMHO there will always
> be something that we would rather add than shell scripting whether
> right or wrong. Polymode and SLIME[R] are just too sexy to resist
> while it's easy to poo poo stodgy old shell scripts.
More information about the ESS-help