It is nice to see that article, but I was a little disappointed in the failure of the article to explain accurately the relationship between R and S and thereby passes over the vision of the creators of S. It mentions S, but gives the impression that S was just something vaguely similar. It doesn't explain that R began as a reimplementation of S(+), and that although S was not open source, it had much of the flexibility of open source because it provided a flexible language in which one could write pretty much anything. (Also, since at least in academic environments, S was supplied as source, which you had to compile (and compile, and compile...) yourself, although you couldn't freely redistribute it, you could in fact read the source and modify it if you liked.)
Bill _______________________________________________ R-lang mailing list [email protected] http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/r-lang
