Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

If you have bug reports for a contributed package please take them up with the maintainer, not the list. Of course, Wacek is right. His observations being made with a customary needle-like precision. It's that old conundrum about how to have your cake and still eat it. Regards to all, Mark.

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

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,

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

Peter Dalgaard wrote: This of course does not mean that the current R should not acknowledge its substantial S heritage, just that if you want to describe the early history of R accurately, you do need to choose your words rather more carefully. Point taken, Peter. But I wan't trying to

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, of course): simply point doubters to the

Re: [R] The Origins of R

Duncan Murdoch wrote: So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key influence. I am sorry to hear that. If I understand you

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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.

Re: [R] The Origins of R

, 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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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)

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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,

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

Rolf, Yes, that's what I was referring to as well… Cheers! Tom Rolf Turner 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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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.

Re: [R] The Origins of R AND CALCULUS

Now that is an interesting line, Ajay, and may help to defuse some frayed tempers. Newton, of course, minded very much. And that, really, is the heart of the matter. For R-people (and I am one of them, so I don't use the term pejoratively), clearly, mind very much, too. But only about part of

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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

Re: [R] The Origins of R

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