[Bioperl-l] The Power of R
sdavis2 at mail.nih.gov
Wed Jan 7 14:01:43 UTC 2009
I agree with Chris, here. RSPerl has potential, but it really isn't a
fantastic solution. Compare to Rpy for python, for example, to see the very
significant differences in usability.
To take another route altogether, one could consider using something like
RServe which provides a SOAP interface to R and then using SOAP calls to the
server to accomplish the tasks. This will have some overhead, but for most
reasonable data sets, should be relatively painless.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Chris Fields <cjfields at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Not to bash this, as it is a decent piece of software, but... : >
> 1) Painful to install, and doesn't support a local perl installation (keeps
> attempting to go back and use my 5.8.8 instead of my local 5.10).
> 2) Not on CPAN.
> 3) Though this is supposed to be bidirectional, R from Perl is not well
> supported and apparently does not work for Windows.
> 4) Doesn't appear to be well-supported in general.
> I do not intend on writing a full perl suite for R/BioC analyses if I end
> up having to work around problems with the critical module.
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Boris Umylny wrote:
> What do you think of RSPerl (http://www.omegahat.org/RSPerl/)?
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Fields" <cjfields at illinois.edu>
>> To: "Mark A. Jensen" <maj at fortinbras.us>
>> Cc: <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] The Power of R
>> Now if we can only get a decent Perl-R interface which isn't a PITA to
>>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:33 PM, Mark A. Jensen wrote:
>>> So says the New York Times:
>>>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>>>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
>>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l