Or at least I can't find anything less clunky than pl.col("x") or pl.literal(2) where in R it's just x or 2.
In many cases you can pass a string or numeric literal to a Polars function instead of the pl.col (e.g. select()/group_by()).
Overall I agree it's less convenient than in dplyr in the cases where pl.col is required, sure, but not terrible and has the benefit of making the code less ambigious which reduces bugs.
I think compsci people can appreciate R as a language itself, because it has really beautiful language features. I think programmers hate it, because it's so different and lispy, with features that they can't really appreciate when coming from a C-style OOP mindset.
Comments
In many cases you can pass a string or numeric literal to a Polars function instead of the pl.col (e.g. select()/group_by()).
Overall I agree it's less convenient than in dplyr in the cases where pl.col is required, sure, but not terrible and has the benefit of making the code less ambigious which reduces bugs.
I think compsci people can appreciate R as a language itself, because it has really beautiful language features. I think programmers hate it, because it's so different and lispy, with features that they can't really appreciate when coming from a C-style OOP mindset.