I'm not emotionally invested in tools so am happy to identify the user experience and operational experience as "trash."

"Trash", despite its connotations of lacking value, is really just a chaotic disorganized mess of something made by artifice with dubious reclaim/reuse/recycle value. Being a subjective assessment, it is natural that one person's trash is a treasure to another.

I take issue with your implication that I'm emotionally invested in something when I shouldn't be. You are free to dislike R and not use it, but to claim that it's "trash" is to wrongly disavow its usefulness for the many people that do find it useful, and to cast aspersions on the judgement of all those people.

Hey, I apologize here, my point on emotional investment was that I, personally, am not emotionally invested in it and did not mean to cast aspersions at you for your defense of the language nor at people who have preferences for it. Specifically I meant that I'm comfortable enough in my understanding of the language to classify it and it's standard library as better in the garbage bin relative to alternatives available.

It's fine that people like it. What's good about it isn't unique, and what's unique about it isn't that great. And there are certainly switching costs for some orgs to consider.