Hi all, I'll throw in my two cents as well.
I personally found it confusing when I first encountered Rcpp11 some time ago. This entirely stemmed from my lack of knowledge about the exact distinction between C++ and C++11, and the boundary between Rcpp and C++ (I was learning Rcpp/C++ as I went, working from a rudimentary knowledge of C). So I think Jonathon's suggestion of FAQ entries would be useful, if only for those who dive into Rcpp without knowing a whole lot about C++ to begin with. Cheers, Scott Ritchie On 30 September 2014 07:08, Romain Francois <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> wrote: > If you want to have a private conversation with Dirk, just email him > directly: e...@debian.org > > Now since this is all in the open, let me participate to this. > > Le 29 sept. 2014 à 22:42, Jonathon Love <j...@thon.cc> a écrit : > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > hey dirk, > > > > i was wondering if you could let us know your thoughts about Rcpp11. > > > > i've found it a little bit confusing, because at first i thought people > > were just talking about Rcpp (which happens to be at version 0.11). > > I also found it confusing that Rcpp's version became 0.11.* > I guess we had it coming after 0.10.* since apparently for some reason it > is trapped in the 0.* land forever > > > then > > i thought it was a newer version of Rcpp, but of course it isn't. then > > i thought it was a version of Rcpp for use with C++11 > > (because presumably Rcpp doesn't support C++11... but of course it does). > > Yes you can use C++11 with Rcpp, and for that matter you can even use > C++11 without Rcpp. You can do arcane .Call stuff on the outside and have > C++11 code inside. > > Now Rcpp11 is a complete redesign, focusing on C++11, it means that it > actively uses C++11, as opposed to let you use it. > > It has also allowed us to step back from mistakes that were made along the > way when developing Rcpp such as (this is just one example) complexity of > too many undocumented constructors for *Vector classes. Doing this is > impossible with Rcpp which has to carry the weight of dependency. > > > so the name alone appears to have been chosen to maximise confusion > > Not at all. Rcpp11 stands for R and C++11. > > From my point of view, the confusion comes from the versioning of Rcpp. > > Perhaps Rcpp will hit version 0.14.* when I start working on Rcpp14 soon. > How convenient would that be. > > > but > > i was wondering what you thought about it technically. do you see it > > replacing ol' Rcpp, and new projects should make an effort to use it > > instead? do you see Rcpp being retired as a result? what is the future > > of repp? > > They will coexist, are maintained by two different persons who have > different goals. And that's fine. > > Right now CRAN makes it difficult to depend on Rcpp11, but we have > implemented a workaround, so the next version of Rcpp11 (to be released > when the next R is released) will be CRAN proof. > > Just use whatever version is best for your needs. I'm spending a great > deal of energy and time (although perhaps not lately) on developing Rcpp11, > but I still use Rcpp for projects for which it makes sense, e.g. dplyr uses > Rcpp. > > > perhaps these might make good FAQ entries. > > > > with thanks > > > > jonathon > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
