One Chart, Twelve Charting Libraries
lisacharlotterost.github.io
lisacharlotterost.github.io
Have a look at some basic ggplot2 examples (all examples were made from the same data): http://tutorials.iq.harvard.edu/R/Rgraphics/Rgraphics.html
I hate to be negative, but this overview is useful only for people who don't really need it - who want to have a look but not actually do anything with it. It's not useful to select a library (especially since it compares completely different languages), and if you already know which system and language to go with it's not useful either.
If you think about learning R: If you don't also learn (a significant amount of) statistics it's a waste of time IMHO. There are (free, if you ignore the "verified certificate" options) courses available on Coursera and edX - even Microsoft has one (on edX). It's worth it - and I mean learning the statistics, not just R. Even if you don't think you need it professionally. Don't try using R as a "graphics" (plotting) or even a programming package - quite frankly, it's not very good at the latter (all modern "real" programming languages are better and more consistent and less "hacky"), but to work your way through lots of DATA quickly R is beautiful.
True, you'd use R charts because your data and analysis are in R, you wouldn't use R because of the charts.
I also dislike the claim that R is not a real programming language. It is. Just because it makes different choices to other popular languages doesn't make it a toy.
Which is not what I said, so I have no idea what exactly you "very strongly" disagree with - it's all in your head. You disagree with your own vivid imagination.
> I also dislike the claim that R is not a real programming language
The only one saying that is YOU!
This is you - "Dick from the Internet": http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
Making up stuff to (strongly, of course!) disagree with!
Pretty curious to see what else people come up with in comments...
The author also had the same experience that I had with the "reusable" libraries built on d3: none of them really work that well either because of bugs or their inflexible interface.
> And I couldn’t combine a log-scale with setting the domain of the x-scale to zero
I don't think it's mathematically possible to have a log scale start at zero, you just make the exponent more and more negative. The first two charts look like you've done it but they're not correct--you don't want the values to be log, you want the scale to be log. In ggplot2 you do this by adding "scale_x_log10()" to the plotting expression, and in native R you usually pass log="x" (I believe).
https://public.tableau.com/views/WorldHealth_4/WorldCountryH...
Interactives are what missing from others. Sure you can see the largest circle, wonder what that is, look up csv, ... second largest circle? rinse repeat. wasting time? sure
with d3, you can hover a circle and get its horiz and vert rule to indicate its center's position on x and y axis -- also a small popup box for simple info, like name, id, etc.
you can summon external vis by clicking on said circle and say, a table appears under the chart, showing rows of data relevant to said circle, or ... other charts for the matter.
the code is not terribly long. i did it 3 years ago.
i don't know how to do interactive chart like i did in d3 in matplotlib, granted i haven't touched matplotlib for 13 years (i think i used numarray back then and feed the result to matplotlib because i refused to use matlab)
You don't really find out X was a bad choice until you run into obscure problems Z1, Z2, Z3.
Experts are chiming to show that with a few tweaks the output could be better for their respective lib, as they should. I really don't like comparisons like this. Not helpful.