Thanks for all the good points. I raised the question not because I doubt the R system, but I think it is a common point for all the open code software. Personally I really appreciate the open source software, and nowadays, there are more and more open source, especially in the academic area.
Ming On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:21:12AM -0600, Tim F Liao wrote: > I'm in agreement with Tom with respect to all the points he > made but two in particular: > > Open code: very useful and much easier (than other software) > to make sure the trustworthiness of the function/library. I > often do go into the code and make sure this is what I want > and it is a good way to find out the "meaning" of certain > parts of the output and to learn others' programming tricks. > And that's the power of R. > > Pedigree of the contributors: top-notch. I remember finding a > "bug" (having to do with detecting heteroscedasticity) in SAS > back in the early 90s and communicated to a SAS tech. SAS was > considered the industry's standard back then, but contributed > mostly by professonal programmers. In comparison, R's > libraries are contributed by statisticians who are at the > forefront of statistical methods research. > > Tim > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:15:31 +0800 > >From: "Mulholland, Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: [R] A "rude" question > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> > > > >What makes you trust any software? > > > >There are some obvious points. First of all the code is open > so if you know enough you can actually read the code and make > sure it does what you want. Secondly you can replicate a > process using two pieces of software and compare the results. > You can check the archives and you will find a number of posts > that talk about the results produced by R and how they compare > with other software. Typically R versus Excel or R versus SPSS > / SAS. Just be careful as different answers does not > automatically mean one is wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean > R is wrong. > > > >Excel computes =ROUND(2.5,0) to be 3 > >R computes round(2.5) to be 2 > > > >As I understand it both are right, they are just using > different standards. I however have always used the latter and > rounded to the even number where the figure to be rounded lies > exactly at the halfway mark. > > > >Hang around this list for a short time and it will become > evident that if this software didn't work; the people using it > would have stopped using it long ago. > > > >Forget the commercial versus open software arguments that > raise their head from time to time. The question is how well a > piece of software is written / maintained & supported and not > issues of payment or the greater good. There is some woeful > freeware, just as there is some woeful commercial products. > > > >The pedigree of the contributors to the base package is hard > to beat. I wouldn't know the pedigree of those who write the > other stats programmes, but I assume that R contributors are > right in there, with the best. > > > >As to packages. They must vary with quality, and people do > make mistakes. If you have something that in modern parlance > is "mission critical" it wouldn't matter which product you > had, you would test it to see that it fitted your requirements. > > > >You have raised a question that is often ignored or assumed. > But to really know the answer for yourself you need to test it > yourself or rely upon others that you trust. Whenever I start > using a package I make sure it does not just what it states it > can do, but also that it does what I want it to do. > > > >Tom > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2005 1:10 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [R] A "rude" question > >> > >> > >> Dear all, > >> I am beginner using R. I have a question about it. When > you use it, > >> since it is written by so many authors, how do you know > that the > >> results are trustable?(I don't want to affend anyone, also > I trust > >> people). But I think this should be a question. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ming > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >> PLEASE do read the posting guide! > >> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >> > > > >______________________________________________ > >[email protected] mailing list > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
