As evidence for my position, and as evidence that I&#x27;m doing my best to fix these issues rather than idly carping, here&#x27;s a bug report I submitted today: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stat.ethz.ch&#x2F;pipermail&#x2F;r-devel&#x2F;2015-September&#x2F;071744.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stat.ethz.ch&#x2F;pipermail&#x2F;r-devel&#x2F;2015-September&#x2F;071744...</a><p>Some of my sampling code was running much slower than I thought made sense (even for R), and the strange part was that larger samples were sometimes 1000x faster than smaller samples.  The answer was that R (wisely) uses two algorithms for sampling without replacement, but the cutoff between them is based on a fixed sample size of 1e7, rather than the percentage of population sampled. Perhaps there&#x27;s a good reason?