And, “However, the case of the R programming language is particularly interesting, because initially it was just a harmless implementation of Scheme; but then as a result of the irresponsible experiments of mad scientists it mutated into a monster.”
I have a hard time taking this seriously, and it probably isn’t meant to be taken as such. It has practically nothing to do with R so I don’t know why one would bring it up.
Saying "gasoline car sucks" IMO automatically imply that any car using gasoline sucks, or if you prefer "$type car outshine any other car type".
[1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/3/225475-a-programmable-...
[2] http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/introduction-why-lisp.html
“The work has been heavily influenced by two existing languages-Becker, Chambers, and Wilks' S (1985) and Steel and Sussman's Scheme (1975). We felt that there were strong points in each of these languages and that it would be interesting to see if the strengths could be combined. The resulting language is very similar in appearance to S, but the underlying implementation and semantics are derived from Scheme. In fact, we implemented the language by first writing an interpreter for a Scheme subset and then progressively mutating it to resemble S.”
(https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~ihaka/downloads/R-paper.pdf)
Unfortunately R’s gain was LispStat’s loss: https://www.jstatsoft.org/issue/view/v013
A much less flippant answer it was a work-a-like intended as a successor to a (licensed) stats language 'S'.
If I have a choice and need to do something reasonably simple or that is well-supported by Racket’s libraries, I like to reach for Racket. If I have a statistical or data munging task, and deployment story isn’t too important, it’s R all the way.