The Origins of R
On 2/4/2009 3:53 PM, Mark Difford wrote:
Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy
nastiness.
Hi Rolf, It is good to have clarification, for you wrote "..,the postings...," tarring everyone with the same brush. And it was quite a nasty brush. It also is conjecture that "this was due to an editor or sub-editor," i.e. the botched article. I think that what some people are waiting for are factual statements from the parties concerned. Conjecture is, well, little more than conjecture.
I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9. So those people have -27 days still to wait. Duncan Murdoch
Regards, Mark. Rolf Turner-3 wrote:
On 4/02/2009, at 8:15 PM, Mark Difford wrote:
Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness.
Indeed, indeed. But I do not feel that that is necessarily the case. Credit should be given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the issue that is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie in his reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect of the story. Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief making" or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee- jerk reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a criticism of a poorly researched article. It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs in R.
The problem is not with criticism of the NY Times article, although
as Pat
Burns and others have pointed out this criticism was somewhat
misdirected
and unrealistic considering the exigencies of newspaper editing. The
problem
was with a number of posts that cast aspersions upon the integrity of
Ihaka and Gentleman. It is these posts that exuded tabloid-esque slimy
nastiness.
I am sure that Ross and Robert would never dream of failing to give
credit
where credit is due and it is almost certainly the case that they
explained
the origins of R in the S language to the writer of the NYT article
(wherefrom
the explanation was cut in the editing process).
Those of us on this list (with the possible exception of one or two
nutters)
would take it that it goes without saying that R was developed on the
basis
of S --- we all ***know*** that. To impugn the integrity of Ihaka
and Gentleman,
because an article which *they didn't write* failed to mention this
fact, is
unconscionable.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.