Revisions to Comparing reproducible research strategies: brew or Sweave vs. R2HTML

edited tags

Link

edited May 18, 2017 at 21:16

amoeba

107.3k
36
321
347

deleted 54 characters in body

Source Link

edited Mar 1, 2017 at 13:36

kjetil b halvorsen ♦

82.8k
32
201
663

This is a bit more "think about it" question - but I see it as an important one to ask.

I have been struggling for the past few days with having a more reproducible-research-like workflow. I am confused with the two different strategies for writing a report.

The two strategies are:

Sweave or brew. Where there is a report.Rnw or report.brew file that has a mixture of some markup language (either HTML or LaTeX) and R code between special braces (say <<>>= @). This file needs to be run through Sweave or brew in order to create the report file (report.html or report.tex).
R2HTML (for HTML) and Hmisc (for LaTeX). Where the .r file uses R functions to construct report.html or report.tex; running the R commands generates the report directly.

What is clear to me is that most people online seem to be using option 1. But I do not understand why it is so common, when option 2 seems to me (without too much experimenting) to be less work.

When is each of the two strategies better?

Any ideas/feedback/thoughts would be welcome, Thanks.

This is a bit more "think about it" question - but I see it as an important one to ask.

I have been struggling for the past few days with having a more reproducible-research-like workflow. I am confused with the two different strategies for writing a report.

The two strategies are:

Sweave or brew. Where there is a report.Rnw or report.brew file that has a mixture of some markup language (either HTML or LaTeX) and R code between special braces (say <<>>= @). This file needs to be run through Sweave or brew in order to create the report file (report.html or report.tex).
R2HTML (for HTML) and Hmisc (for LaTeX). Where the .r file uses R functions to construct report.html or report.tex; running the R commands generates the report directly.

What is clear to me is that most people online seem to be using option 1. But I do not understand why it is so common, when option 2 seems to me (without too much experimenting) to be less work.

When is each of the two strategies better?

Any ideas/feedback/thoughts would be welcome, Thanks.

This is a bit more "think about it" question - but I see it as an important one to ask.

I have been struggling for the past few days with having a more reproducible-research-like workflow. I am confused with the two different strategies for writing a report.

The two strategies are:

Sweave or brew. Where there is a report.Rnw or report.brew file that has a mixture of some markup language (either HTML or LaTeX) and R code between special braces (say <<>>= @). This file needs to be run through Sweave or brew in order to create the report file (report.html or report.tex).
R2HTML (for HTML) and Hmisc (for LaTeX). Where the .r file uses R functions to construct report.html or report.tex; running the R commands generates the report directly.

What is clear to me is that most people online seem to be using option 1. But I do not understand why it is so common, when option 2 seems to me (without too much experimenting) to be less work.

When is each of the two strategies better?