Individuals come to conclusions by mere cognition but not by conation; I always say, in fact, the action (which is close to conation), that determines appreciation, but not the other two (cognition and conation).
Knowledge is the function of thought and wisdom is the function of heart. (Thought vs. Heart). To judge, one need to have complete detachment with anything and do his/her duty keeping psych unfazed and almost beyond dualities (ద్వంద). I know you are not able to follow me. Coming to the point (సోది వదిలేసి అసలు విషయానికి వస్తే):
I came across a debate as what statistical computing system is efficient and what not! The debate is all about R language Vs. Julia. There is one John M. Whites (Julian) and the other Bogumil Kaminski (R) debating on Julia vs. R Language. Very interesting. You need to read two separate blogs; they are:
1. the first one about Julia's efficiency from here
2. The second one about R performance from here
I am sure that you people are very busy individuals, you may not be able to find time to click above links (the links are very dangerous there is no end for them, they keeps on let you surf online, like chain reaction, one after the other).
The point I want to highlight is, a language is anyway a language. They differ the way routines are executed. Some are slow and other are fast. The individuals are trying to prove the efficiency by the parameter FAST. While I accept this attribute's importance, do highlight other. The primary problem is not about fast. But algorithm itself. For instance, the other day, I was describing animation in class. In R we have many ways to compute within two or three statements, but in SAS the same thing needs almost three to four pages of coding. Is it more important to talk about fast? A person, who is novice at computing may not worry about fast, but code! Of course, FAST is very important attribute that might determine efficiency, but the problem is how many of our computers are faster than we are? Like our director sir's office computer. Usually, he clicks the computer and wait aeons to get response. You know, I have the habit of bringing every thing under the concept of EVOLUTION. Today's computer is a very imperfect machine. After all, it is also in the process of EVOLUTION.
Knowledge is the function of thought and wisdom is the function of heart. (Thought vs. Heart). To judge, one need to have complete detachment with anything and do his/her duty keeping psych unfazed and almost beyond dualities (ద్వంద). I know you are not able to follow me. Coming to the point (సోది వదిలేసి అసలు విషయానికి వస్తే):
I came across a debate as what statistical computing system is efficient and what not! The debate is all about R language Vs. Julia. There is one John M. Whites (Julian) and the other Bogumil Kaminski (R) debating on Julia vs. R Language. Very interesting. You need to read two separate blogs; they are:
1. the first one about Julia's efficiency from here
2. The second one about R performance from here
I am sure that you people are very busy individuals, you may not be able to find time to click above links (the links are very dangerous there is no end for them, they keeps on let you surf online, like chain reaction, one after the other).
The point I want to highlight is, a language is anyway a language. They differ the way routines are executed. Some are slow and other are fast. The individuals are trying to prove the efficiency by the parameter FAST. While I accept this attribute's importance, do highlight other. The primary problem is not about fast. But algorithm itself. For instance, the other day, I was describing animation in class. In R we have many ways to compute within two or three statements, but in SAS the same thing needs almost three to four pages of coding. Is it more important to talk about fast? A person, who is novice at computing may not worry about fast, but code! Of course, FAST is very important attribute that might determine efficiency, but the problem is how many of our computers are faster than we are? Like our director sir's office computer. Usually, he clicks the computer and wait aeons to get response. You know, I have the habit of bringing every thing under the concept of EVOLUTION. Today's computer is a very imperfect machine. After all, it is also in the process of EVOLUTION.