I recall when the pipe operator was first being proposed the argument for it was that it'd enable workflows that felt more like Excel. The implication being that indeed, base R is alien to an Excel user.
I also recall my pushback was along the lines of "who on earth would want that". Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not the person coming up with these things :)
> I recall when the pipe operator was first being proposed the argument for it was that it'd enable workflows that felt more like Excel.
Where are you getting that from? To start with the pipe operator has been independently reinvented multiple times in R, and neither ‘magrittr’ nor ‘dplyr’ were the first to introduce the pipe operator into R. And (at least when I was exposed to it), the pipe operator had nothing whatsoever to do with Excel. Instead, it was an attempt to introduce the composability concepts from the UNIX shell and Haskell composition into R.
You have me second guessing myself, that perhaps I’m conflating it with the convo around dplyr in it’s early days
EDIT: I found the conversation in question but it involved deleted tweets. And those deleted tweets are the one that reference the package name. Sigh. It was just after the release of magrittr and several months after dplyr
I haven't used R enough in the last 10 years to have an R-specific opinion. And to be honest it was more an unlearned statement on my part as it was an "ew, Excel" response and not thinking about the underlying workflow.
In the intervening time I've become a large advocate for the pattern of chained operators. So I'd imagine I'd enjoy piping in R. And if that means I'm emulating a common Excel workflow, that's fine. I won't have the childish response of "ew, Excel" :)
I also recall my pushback was along the lines of "who on earth would want that". Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not the person coming up with these things :)