# Modularity for making Stan more Pythonic and Rthonic

**URL:** <https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/modularity-for-making-stan-more-pythonic-and-rthonic/11103>\
**Category:** Developers\
**Created:** [September 24, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/modularity-for-making-stan-more-pythonic-and-rthonic/11103 "2019-09-24T18:00:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![seantalts](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/seantalts/32/32_2.png) [@seantalts](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/seantalts)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2019, 11:57am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/modularity-for-making-stan-more-pythonic-and-rthonic/11103/20 "2019-09-25T11:57:57Z")

</div>

> [@Bob\_Carpenter](#):
>
> My biggest complaint about the RStan and PyStann APIs is that they work through these monolithic Stan fit objects (that’s also in the roadmap going forward, so at most I’m lobbying for new functions here)

Wait, can you put these complaints into[the roadmap thread](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/interface-roadmap-last-draft-before-ratification-vote/10955)? You once asked a question there about whether fit objects were mutable and the reply was that they weren’t, but I didn’t know you had some further distaste for them. Would love to hear more about your views.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/modularity-for-making-stan-more-pythonic-and-rthonic/11103)._