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
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.
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,
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
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
