And this response is clearly a flame with (also) an obvious bias and no constructive contribution towards the issue at hand.
Leaving bias, politics, and copyright aside, let's answer question 1: why compile Rcpp with VC if you won't be able to load that code into R? Davor On August 30, 2010 08:26:39 am Dominick Samperi wrote: > Play by the rules? Attract the wrong crowd? Lower our standards? > This is clearly a political post with an obvious bias. > > Such propaganda would probably be frowned upon if it wasn't for the > fact the the person who posted this message is also the > mailing list maintainer. > > Free software ideology and R-Forge emerged to facilitate sharing, > not to be used as tools to build empires. > > As Romain does *all* of the development, creative work, and > quality control, he should decide where to go with this, not a > politician. > > Dominick > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > Having discussed this some more with Romain who has no strong views > > on the matter, I am inclined to the remove the patch that added > > the ability for > > > > compilation with MSVC as I cannnot come up with answers to these questions: > > i) Why would it make sense to have this? Honestly, what is it > > good for > > > > to > > > > compile Rcpp _in isolation_ when one cannot load the > > resulting object code in R ? > > > > ii) The new files lack proper headers, credits, copyrights. Our > > code > > > > plays > > > > by the rules in terms of credits, copyrights and licensing. I > > see no reason to lower our standards and risk getting into > > trouble when as per i) there is no reason or upside anyway. > > > > iii) I fear it attracts the wrong crowd of Windows users with > > little > > > > knowledge about R, and little C/C++ understanding outside > > their cherished IDE. If people want something for Visual > > Whatever, I just learned from Bryan Lewis the other day that > > he is working on an Rserve-on-Windows improvement -- see > > http://illposed.net/rserve.html and in particular the last > > paragraph. That is a better route as it > > > > may > > > > actually work with dotWhatever etc. > > > > But before I remove the patch I would like to hear from potential > > users (ideally: others than just the patch submitters) as to why > > this would be a bad idea. > > > > Thanks, Dirk > > > > -- > > Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Rcpp-devel mailing list > > Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org > > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-d > > evel _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
