In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making. Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times article: ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to take the software home, or copy it down from the web. There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a follow-up. Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and Graphics Using R", we have: "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and Allan Wilks". The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be used.] That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development of S, a kind of pre-history of R. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
The Origins of R
18 messages · John Maindonald, Rolf Turner, Wacek Kusnierczyk +9 more
John, I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would call it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! Regards, Tom
John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making. Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times article: ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to take the software home, or copy it down from the web. There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a follow-up. Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and Graphics Using R", we have: "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and Allan Wilks". The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be used.] That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development of S, a kind of pre-history of R. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
______________________________________________ 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.
Thomas E Adams National Weather Service Ohio River Forecast Center 1901 South State Route 134 Wilmington, OH 45177 EMAIL: thomas.adams at noaa.gov VOICE: 937-383-0528 FAX: 937-383-0033
On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote:
John, I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would call it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! Regards, Tom John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making.
<snip> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness. cheers, Rolf Turner ###################################################################### Attention: This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal www.marshalsoftware.com ######################################################################
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. Regards, Mark.
Rolf Turner-3 wrote:
On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote:
John, I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would call it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! Regards, Tom John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making.
<snip> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness. cheers, Rolf Turner ###################################################################### Attention: This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal www.marshalsoftware.com ######################################################################
______________________________________________ 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.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21825547.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rolf Turner wrote:
The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness.
utterly self-ironic. vQ
It seems to me that the "other side" from John's post here have complaints resulting from how newspapers operate. While few readers here are likely to have much direct experience with newspapers, a lot (I presume) have experience with submitting papers to journals. Such experience is likely to include demands to cut out large portions of the original in order to cut down on page count. The same process operates in newspapers, but to the third power (and generally under considerable time pressure). My reaction to the section of the original NYT article under discussion was that it was a disjointed mess due to editing rather than a slight to anyone anywhere. Patrick Burns patrick at burns-stat.com +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of "The R Inferno" and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making. Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times article: ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to take the software home, or copy it down from the web. There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a follow-up. Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and Graphics Using R", we have: "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and Allan Wilks". The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be used.] That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development of S, a kind of pre-history of R. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
______________________________________________ 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.
Patrick Burns wrote:
My reaction to the section of the original NYT article under discussion was that it was a disjointed mess due to editing rather than a slight to anyone anywhere.
I think that is pretty much spot on. I can imagine Ross or Robert explaining why they couldn't use S-PLUS for computer labs in 1992: The licences were too expensive, and the whole thing was designed to run on Unix workstations or terminals connected to a department minicomputer, plus there was this issue that it stored all variables in files, causing a harddisk bottleneck. Filter that through a journalist and he might well come up with a "simplified" wording like we see in the article. (The scary bit is that this sort of thing occurs almost every time we happen to know the actual background behind news stories, but still we tend to believe the information we get from the press in any other matter.)
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
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}}
<snip> 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. <snip> Just want to clarify that the nutters referred to here are not the same as the Nutters that bear my name :-) =================================== P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008). Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of our services, staff and locations. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use\...{{dropped:13}}
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. 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.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21839399.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 04-Feb-09 20:45:04, Nutter, Benjamin wrote:
<snip> 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. <snip> Just want to clarify that the nutters referred to here are not the same as the Nutters that bear my name :-)
Surely the Nutters are a Movement or a Party[1] whose members
are nutters?
[1] In the UK we have long had the Monster Raving Loony Party,
which (at least in a 1990 bye-election) made a serious dent
in the political scene.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Raving_Looney_Party
:-)
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 04-Feb-09 Time: 21:04:55
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
Rolf, Yes, that's what I was referring to as well? Cheers! Tom
Rolf Turner 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.
Thomas E Adams National Weather Service Ohio River Forecast Center 1901 South State Route 134 Wilmington, OH 45177 EMAIL: thomas.adams at noaa.gov VOICE: 937-383-0528 FAX: 937-383-0033
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.
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
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course): simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's comments only deepen the "mystery." If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't, wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms, as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no editorial or sub-editorial meddling. The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become. Regards, Mark. still to wait.
Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
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.
______________________________________________ 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.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21845788.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 2/5/2009 1:05 AM, Mark Difford wrote:
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
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course): simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's comments only deepen the "mystery." If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't, wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms, as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no editorial or sub-editorial meddling.
That's not what I read in the posting to this list that I cited. I doubt if Ashlee Vance is reading this list, so it doesn't really seem fair to blame him if he doesn't respond to your attacks. So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key influence. Why else did he move to the far side of the globe? And not only that, but to compound the insult, the NY Times has failed to mention me every day since then! Duncan Murdoch
The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become. Regards, Mark. still to wait. Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
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.
______________________________________________ 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.
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key influence.
I am sorry to hear that. If I understand you correctly, it seems that Mr. Vance made an even more botched job of parts of his article than one would have thought possible. The proverbial curate's egg, it seems. Regards, Mark.
Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
On 2/5/2009 1:05 AM, Mark Difford wrote:
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
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course): simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's comments only deepen the "mystery." If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't, wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms, as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no editorial or sub-editorial meddling.
That's not what I read in the posting to this list that I cited. I doubt if Ashlee Vance is reading this list, so it doesn't really seem fair to blame him if he doesn't respond to your attacks. So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key influence. Why else did he move to the far side of the globe? And not only that, but to compound the insult, the NY Times has failed to mention me every day since then! Duncan Murdoch
The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become. Regards, Mark. still to wait. Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
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.
______________________________________________ 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.
______________________________________________ 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.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21854222.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Can we give this a rest (or take it offline)? This is the R-Help mail list, and I fail to grasp how anyone is being helped to use R by this endless discussion. -Roy M. ********************** "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA." ********************** Roy Mendelssohn Supervisory Operations Research Analyst NOAA/NMFS Environmental Research Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center 1352 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097 e-mail: Roy.Mendelssohn at noaa.gov (Note new e-mail address) voice: (831)-648-9029 fax: (831)-648-8440 www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/ "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." "From those who have been given much, much will be expected"
Consider yourself lucky! I'm sure there are many people who would prefer not to see their name in the NYT. ;-) Murray Coooper ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> To: "Mark Difford" <mark_difford at yahoo.co.uk> Cc: <r-help at r-project.org> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [R] The Origins of R
On 2/5/2009 1:05 AM, Mark Difford wrote:
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
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course): simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's comments only deepen the "mystery." If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't, wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms, as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no editorial or sub-editorial meddling.
That's not what I read in the posting to this list that I cited. I doubt if Ashlee Vance is reading this list, so it doesn't really seem fair to blame him if he doesn't respond to your attacks. So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key influence. Why else did he move to the far side of the globe? And not only that, but to compound the insult, the NY Times has failed to mention me every day since then! Duncan Murdoch
The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become. Regards, Mark. still to wait. Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
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.
______________________________________________ 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.
______________________________________________ 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.