Ajay ohri wrote:
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
Wacek,
If you have bug reports for a contributed package please take them up with the
maintainer, not the list.
-thomas
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
Ajay ohri wrote:
An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting
this, hoping for a divide
, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-AND-CALCULUS-tp21846099p21847724.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https
Does any student, or teacher for that matter care whether Newton or
Leibntiz
invented calculas.
Students or teachers may not care, but Newton and Leibniz themselves were
pretty bitter about who should get credit for what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_v._Leibniz_calculus_controversy
I
Mark Difford wrote:
It would have been very easy for Mr. Vance to have written:
John M. Chambers, a former Bell Labs researcher who is now a consulting
professor of statistics at Stanford University, was an early champion. At
Bell Labs, Mr. Chambers had helped develop S, THE PROTOTYPE OF R,
to give an accurate portrayal of the
origins of R. That was Mr. Vance's obligation. I was attempting to show how
easy it would be for someone who is a writer by profession to make
reasonable, and proper, reference to R's substantial S heritage..., as you
yourself put it. And that, really, I feel
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
.
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
Can we give this a rest (or take it offline)? This is the R-Help
mail list, and I fail to grasp how anyone is being helped to use R by
this endless discussion.
-Roy M.
**
The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S.
Government or NOAA.
, 2009 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [R] The Origins of R
On 2/5/2009 1:05 AM, Mark Difford 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
Rolf Turner wrote:
The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness.
utterly self-ironic.
vQ
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide
It seems to me that the other side from John's
post here have complaints resulting from how
newspapers operate. While few readers here
are likely to have much direct experience with
newspapers, a lot (I presume) have experience
with submitting papers to journals.
Such experience is likely to
Patrick Burns wrote:
My reaction to the section of the original NYT
article under discussion was that it was a
disjointed mess due to editing rather than a slight
to anyone anywhere.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I can imagine Ross or Robert explaining why they couldn't use S-PLUS
Patrick Burns likely is closest to the truth in noting that the editing of
the NYT article was possibly savage. The author is probably fuming, and
can't do much or he'll not get future work.
I was a columnist for Interface Age and then a sub-editor for Byte in the
early 80s. If an ad came in
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
snip
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.
snip
Just want to clarify that the nutters referred to here are not the same
as the Nutters that
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 04-Feb-09 20:45:04, Nutter, Benjamin wrote:
snip
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.
snip
Just want to clarify that the nutters
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
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
. 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
, 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
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
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been
made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to
the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and
will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of
mischief making.
John,
I certainly had that same impression of mischief making — I would call
it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers
contributors. Mischief making indeed!
Regards,
Tom
John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been
On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote:
John,
I certainly had that same impression of mischief making — I would
call
it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers
contributors. Mischief making indeed!
Regards,
Tom
John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on
/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-tp21820910p21825547.html
Sent from the R help mailing
27 matches
Mail list logo
