[Rcpp-devel] Planning to remove the MSVC patch

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 <edd at 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 | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com