@Merovius Though expected in that ecosystem; everything starts with "R" or has a capitilised "R" somewhere in the name that is intended to be pronounced /ˈɑːr/.

@koantig There are a bunch of things that make it unreliable for reproducible science if care is not taken. I think probably things have improved since, but in no particular order: library loading order impacts on what functions are run due to name shadowing (and this can happen transitively); version pinning is not commonly done and semantics can change subtly between versions; there are subtle class- and type-dependent behavioural differences (e.g. `reshape2:: melt`); there are arbitrary and undocumented parameter-dependent behavioural differences in some functions (`summary.lm` with and without an intercept, `MASS::lda` randomly chooses which side of the boundary you are on if you are withing 1e-5 of the boundary); what does `fn()` return when `fn<-function() { return (1+2+3+4)/5 }` (this kind of thing is easily missed in code review); global state persists (packages, default options, variables…).