Skip to content

comparison with broom.mixed #1095

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
bbolker opened this issue Apr 30, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

comparison with broom.mixed #1095

bbolker opened this issue Apr 30, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@bbolker
Copy link

bbolker commented Apr 30, 2025

So far I have been continuing to actively maintain broom.mixed. However, I wouldn't object to putting it into maintenance mode (probably not removing it from CRAN for quite a while) if it seems to be superseded by parameters.

Thoughts? Pros and cons?

@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

bwiernik commented May 1, 2025

I think parameters provides generally equivalent and broader support compared to broom.mixed, so I think maintenance mode (like broom) makes sense

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

Some pros/cons:

From a developer perspective, parameters has a bit of "overload", but there are arguments to avoid the time-consuming formatting of the output data frame, thus, computation time for tidying should not be crucial.

The major difference is that in easystats, the tidy-stuff is in parameters, the "augment/glance" (?) stuff is in performance, while you have both functions together in broom / broom.mixed.

broom is probably still used more widely by users directly, while meanwhile some wide-spread packages like modelsummary or gtsummary rely on parameters and performance in first instance (and fall back to broom only if the other fail).

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

From a user-perspective, parameters might be more convenient to the additional features, as Brenton mentioned, like standardizing, different ci-methods etc., and nice printing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants