Totally get that. I was mostly just long-windedly complaining that the one problem I have with it seems to be exacerbated by, not fixed, by this. I was also hoping someone would say “oh it’s actually way easier than you think, see (amazing link).”
I really do think it’s a good idea to explore! Sometimes I feel crazy because I’m the only one in my department that prefers to just write SQL to deal with our DBs instead of fiddling with a python/R connector that always has its own quirks.
I applaud the project, and I completely agree that the concepts maps nicely to SQL. The R equivalent of a WITH data prep block followed by the VISUALIZE is pretty much how all my plotting code is structured.
However, I don't see what the benefits of this are (other than having a simple DSL, but that creates the yet another DSL problme) over ggplot2. What do I gain by using this over ggplot2 in R?
The only problem, and the only reason I ever leave ggplot2 for visualizations, is how difficult it is to do anything "non-standard" that hasn't already had a geom created in the ggplot ecosystem. When you want to do something "different" it's way easier to drop into the primitive drawing operations of whatever you're using than it is to try to write the ggplot-friendly adapter.
Even wrapping common "partial specificiations" as a function (which should "just work" imo) is difficult depending on whether you're trying to wrap something that composes with the rest of the spec via `+` or via pipe (`|>`, the operator formerly known as `%>%`)
Most of the memories I have of my grandmother are post-serious Parkinson's progression. She was able to live a very long life, but it seriously affected her. Good luck, hoping for the best for you.
I’m not sure what your professional experience is in, but as a counterpoint, I’ve never been in a situation where I hadn’t wished for a system I’m working with to already be in a Bayesian framework. Having said that, I only occasionally am building things from scratch instead of modifying existing systems, so I’m not always lucky enough to be able to work with them.
The pain points around getting a sampler/model pairing working in a reasonable timeframe is definitely a valid complaint. In my experience, inference methods in Bayesian stats are much less forgiving of poorly specified models (or said another way, don’t let you get away with ignoring important structural components of the phenomena of interest). A poorly performing model (in terms of sampler speed/mixing) is often a sign of a problem with the geometry of the parameter space. Frustratingly this can sometimes be a result of conceptually equivalent, but computationally different parameterizations (e.g. centered vs non-centered multi level effects).
The struggles are worth it IMO because it is helpful feedback that helps guide design, and the ease with which I can compute meaningful uncertainty bounds on pretty much any quantity of interest is invaluable.
My go to for teaching statistics is Statistical Rethinking. It’s basically a course in how to actually thing about modeling: what you’re really looking for is analyzing a hypothesis, and a model may be consistent with a number of hypotheses, figuring out what hypotheses any given model implies is the hard/fun part, and this book teaches you that. The only drawback is that it’s not free. (Although there are excellent lectures by the author available for free on YouTube. These are worth watching even if you don’t get the book.)
I also recommend Gelman’s (one of the authors of the linked book) Regression and Other Stories as a more approachable text for this content.
Think Bayes and Bayesian Methods for Hackers are introductory books from a beginner coming from a programming background.
If you want something more from the ML world that heavily emphasizes the benefits of probabilistic (Bayesian) methods, I highly recommend Kevin Murphy’s Probabilistic Machine Learning. I have only read the first edition before he split it into two volumes and expanded it, but I’ve only heard good things about the new volumes too.