See my reply to Romain in the original thread. I have nothing more to say about most of this, except for the last bit about GNU make. This comment was for the benefit of the R community. It appears that it is not generally known that in GNU make there is an important difference between ':=' and '=', and the former should be used in most cases because it does not cause undesirable side-effects.
Dominick On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Samperi started to publicly accuse me on mailing lists a good year ago and > I > have tried successfully not to engage for a long enough time-- as it is not > worth debating with clowns. This however is to good to pass up, and too > full > of misinformation. > > On 16 November 2010 at 15:38, Dominick Samperi wrote: > | On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]> > wrote: > | > It's been about two years since I started to maintain and extend the > Rcpp > | > package which its previous maintainer had left dead and rotting in the > | > digital archives for two years already at that point. > | > | Correction here. That package that was left "dead and rotting" on CRAN > | was updated by its author (that would be me) in November of 2009 to > > Precisely. November 2009 -- I was talking about November 2008. > > So that bings "dead and rotting" to about three full years (from the last > November 2006 release of RcppTemplate til this three year hiatus was > briefly > interrupted in November 2009) before the package was once again withdrawn > by > Sameri, and left to rot which it has since. > > Withdrawn with strong words, by the way, and in direct violations of its > GPL > copyright terms. But who cares about these such for details. Certainly not > Samperi. [ For the record, we do in fact care about the GPL. ] > > | include object-mapping features that were later reimplemented in what > | is now known as the Rcpp package. The syntax used for these features > | in Rcpp is Rcpp::as and Rcpp:wrap. > > This directly implies that Romain and I read Samperi's code for > implementing > our package. Let me be very plain and clear hear: We have not. > > Folks are free to believe who they will: Samperi (one random package on > CRAN, > no users beside himself) or us (well over a dozen packages between Romain > and > myself, with fairly widespread usage by other packages). I'll rest the > counting case here. > > | Shortly after I released this work the following comment was added to > | the README file for Rcpp (version 0.8.3): > | > | "As of November 2009, Dominick has re-commenced maintenance of > RcppTemplate > | with new releases on CRAN. This may provide a good opportunity to import > | some new ideas into Rcpp as well, time permitting." > > That as a required update to the fact that README previosly said that > RcppTemplate was witdrawn; it actually wasn't for a few days so I wrote > something to fact that RcppTemplate was back (however briefly that turned > out > to be the case). The comment refered to the fact that Samperi replaced a > rough first implementation of a data frame in C++ (still in Rcpp's classic > API as we believe in maintaining interfaces -- rather than letting them > rot) > with something that looked better. But thanks to Romain we have something > even better anyway. > > As for the Make documentation hint: that's funny. Samperi was the one > yelling > at Uwe for suspecting that he purposely broke his builds (please...) It > only > ever broke on Windoze anyway, and as I said -- the point is moot because of > LinkingTo. Which Samperi's silly little cxxPack still doesn't use. > > I guess Samperi is too busy flaming people and telling lies rather thank > coding. Each to their own. > > Dirk > > -- > Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com >
_______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
