An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting this, hoping for a divide between S and R communities.or at the very minimum hoping for some amusement. an assumption or even a pretense of stealing credit is one of the easiest ways of sparking intellectual discord Most users of softwares don't really care about who gets credit ( Who wrote Windows Vista ,or Mac OS or Ubuntu Linux), and the NYT is a newspaper not a journal.
Does any student, or teacher for that matter care whether Newton or Leibntiz invented calculas. On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Mark Difford <mark_diff...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote: > > >> I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a > >> comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9. So those people have -27 days > > Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course): > simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's > comments only deepen the "mystery." > > If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to > misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which > is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't, > wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms, > as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of > ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no > editorial or sub-editorial meddling. > > The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive > some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become. > > Regards, Mark. > > still to wait. > > Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote: > > > > On 2/4/2009 3:53 PM, Mark Difford wrote: > >>>> >>> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy > >>>>>> nastiness. > >> > >> Hi Rolf, > >> > >> It is good to have clarification, for you wrote "..,the postings...," > >> tarring everyone with the same brush. And it was quite a nasty brush. It > >> also is conjecture that "this was due to an editor or sub-editor," i.e. > >> the > >> botched article. > >> > >> I think that what some people are waiting for are factual statements > from > >> the parties concerned. Conjecture is, well, little more than conjecture. > > > > I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a > > comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9. So those people have -27 days > > still to wait. > > > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > >> > >> Regards, Mark. > >> > >> > >> Rolf Turner-3 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4/02/2009, at 8:15 PM, Mark Difford wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy > >>>>>> nastiness. > >>>> > >>>> Indeed, indeed. But I do not feel that that is necessarily the > >>>> case. Credit > >>>> should be given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the > >>>> issue that > >>>> is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie > >>>> in his > >>>> reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect > >>>> of the > >>>> story. > >>>> > >>>> Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is > >>>> essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief > >>>> making" > >>>> or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee- > >>>> jerk > >>>> reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a > >>>> criticism of a poorly researched article. > >>>> > >>>> It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs > >>>> in R. > >>> > >>> The problem is not with criticism of the NY Times article, although > >>> as Pat > >>> Burns and others have pointed out this criticism was somewhat > >>> misdirected > >>> and unrealistic considering the exigencies of newspaper editing. The > >>> problem > >>> was with a number of posts that cast aspersions upon the integrity of > >>> Ihaka and Gentleman. It is these posts that exuded tabloid-esque slimy > >>> nastiness. > >>> > >>> I am sure that Ross and Robert would never dream of failing to give > >>> credit > >>> where credit is due and it is almost certainly the case that they > >>> explained > >>> the origins of R in the S language to the writer of the NYT article > >>> (wherefrom > >>> the explanation was cut in the editing process). > >>> > >>> Those of us on this list (with the possible exception of one or two > >>> nutters) > >>> would take it that it goes without saying that R was developed on the > >>> basis > >>> of S --- we all ***know*** that. To impugn the integrity of Ihaka > >>> and Gentleman, > >>> because an article which *they didn't write* failed to mention this > >>> fact, is > >>> unconscionable. > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> > >>> Rolf Turner > >>> > >>> ###################################################################### > >>> Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and > confid...{{dropped:9}} > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> R-help@r-project.org mailing list > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide > >>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21845788.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.