org-mode VS TidyverseSkeptic

Nope. Though Emacs does support dnd. Someone is to dig into the weeds of the Emacs dnd API and to implement dnd support in Org. Patches welcome! See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html

It would be even better if you turn appropriate parts of the article into a patch to Org manual. We currently lack detailed description of citations, unfortunately. See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html

Yes, this problem should be present for everyone using the same version of org-mode as you are. From a quick look around, it seems that this regex was committed in 2013 in commit 5f095f59099e77eda5cf7cae64119f9f246c4c70.

I just don't get these to be honest -- besides the fact that author missed simple things like `df.groupby('var',as_index=False)`, isn't this obviously arbitrary "this is easier my way" complaints? (I did R before all the chaining stuff was popular, and I wouldn't stuff everything into a single command like that even now. It isn't like you get lazy evaluation or any special data processing magic.)

So I get people love chaining and tidyverse, good for you, I don't. But at least I can acknowledge that my way (or this way) people have different preferences and one is not intrinsically easier.

Norm Matloff has a blog where he essentially just argues the opposite of all the tidyverse stuff, https://github.com/matloff/TidyverseSkeptic, but it is the same idea in reverse to me (one is not obviously easier to learn than the other IMO).

On the other hand, there is also a more traditional universe outside of the of the newer tidyverse approach. See the criticism of the tidyverse ecosystem by Prof Norm Matloff (of UC Davis). He provides a freely available introductory course in base R.

Whenever I hear tidyverse, I just feel the need to leave this: TidyverseSceptic

Yeah, I had never heard of him before, but I followed the link in the article above to his GitHub page and think he made some really great points about conciseness and clarity in base R code, and, I admittedly had no idea tapply() was so useful and easy to use, because I almost never see it used in any examples online. Although I agree with others here that he's misrepresenting why package developers use base R (which is to avoid dependences in their packages, which is very important), I also find myself agreeing with him that future R programmers not being taught base R is worrisome (I'm thinking of dependencies in future package development).

I was in an R group meeting. One of the members mentioned Prof. Norm Matloff and said he has comments about tidyverse. I searched and found Matloff's explanation here. What are your thoughts on tidyverse and Matloff's comments about it? As I read it, I found myself agreeing with certain points. I do not have a computer science background; I'm someone trying to learn coding because I see uses for it in my work. I started my learning, about a year ago, with tidyverse tutorials. My patchwork jumping around, maybe in addition to some of the gaps Matloff indicates, show me that I know very little about base R.

There are good arguments against tidyverse, especially for beginners. It doesn't lead to a growth in understanding the language fundamentals and requires to learn many functions, paradigms, and syntaxes not shared by base R, which can easily be overwhelming and lead to a learn-by-heart approach more than to a learn-by-understanding. There are many good articles on the topic, such as this one or a more in-depth one, suggesting to consider tidyverse a more advanced application for specific use cases, if you like the dialect. I don't, so I might be biased.

I would discourage you to get into the tidyverse, at least in the first stages of your R training. It's like trying to learn english AND scottish together as a foreigner. You can read some better worded discussions here https://github.com/matloff/TidyverseSkeptic and here https://towardsdatascience.com/a-thousand-gadgets-my-thoughts-on-the-r-tidyverse-2441d8504433?gi=1b0a3648b6e6

My opinions are largely in agreement with Norm Matloff on the subject actually.