What I meant was that they are syntactically similar. They work the way that default base R functions work. They _look_ like base R functions. They aren't the same as base R functions. They fit smoothly into base R, often filling holes that base R has. One can (and I do) use base R and tidyverse functions with each other all the time
This is as opposed to ggplot. Which legitimately seems like a completely different language. It looks, reads, and acts differently than base R plotting. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and, in my opinion, does not have enough functionality to justify the departure from standard R conventions. Which is why I don't use it.
As to restating your point: Your original comment combined with what you have said here makes me completely confused. The fact that people don't "stay" in the tidyverse is evidence that it is well integrated and _shouldn't_ be forked. You can use it for what it's good for, and then go use other things that are better at what they are doing.
If people regularly did the entire pipeline of import > data manipulation > data analysis and never left the tidyverse, then you would have an argument that it should be forked.
The fact that people dont do this is evidence that it belongs how it is: a package.
I don't really understand your comment about "disconnected". My code doesn't feel disconnected other than that different portions of it are doing different things. But then again, I also think that tidyverse functions don't look that different from base R functions (which, again, is not the same thing as being the same as already existent R functions).
This is as opposed to ggplot. Which legitimately seems like a completely different language. It looks, reads, and acts differently than base R plotting. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and, in my opinion, does not have enough functionality to justify the departure from standard R conventions. Which is why I don't use it.
As to restating your point: Your original comment combined with what you have said here makes me completely confused. The fact that people don't "stay" in the tidyverse is evidence that it is well integrated and _shouldn't_ be forked. You can use it for what it's good for, and then go use other things that are better at what they are doing.
If people regularly did the entire pipeline of import > data manipulation > data analysis and never left the tidyverse, then you would have an argument that it should be forked.
The fact that people dont do this is evidence that it belongs how it is: a package.
I don't really understand your comment about "disconnected". My code doesn't feel disconnected other than that different portions of it are doing different things. But then again, I also think that tidyverse functions don't look that different from base R functions (which, again, is not the same thing as being the same as already existent R functions).