[Rd] [R] Semantics of sequences in R
Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no
Tue Feb 24 11:27:08 CET 2009
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> I am well aware of those fortunes and maybe you missed the one:
> Getting flamed for asking dumb questions on a public mailing list is
> all part of growing up and being a man/woman.
> -- Michael Watson (in a discussion on whether answers on R-help
> should be more polite)
> R-help (December 2004)
i did miss it. i'm gladly including it in my collection of quotes
documenting your approach to your users. thanks.
>> ah, so what's the difference between the way i pinpoint design flaws
>> and the way r gurus respond to people, so that i am running with a
>> chip on my shoulder, and they are being 'negatively
>> motivating/reinforcing' in didactic terms? [...]
> Your goal is, presumably, that you want to have the design flaws
> fixed/discussed/&c. The goal of the R gurus is to avoid having to
> waste their time on unproductive issues because people do not read
> documentation/behave contrary to how they are asked to behave/&c.
> To reach your goal, the controversial approach is counter productive.
> To reach their goal, the controversial approach can be quite effective.
nice summary. you rule, we crawl.
> Come on, read your own quote above: "Shouldn't the tests have captured
> this? I think you should have a check for every feature following from
> the docs", If this is not "telling others that they should write such
> test", then what is?
employing the recent trick of duncan's, i'd say that i wasn't telling
anyone that they should do something. i said 'i think', which is
explaining what i think, not telling to do.
but even without the trick, even if i said 'you should' instead of 'i
think you should', if you were not oversensitive, exaggerating, and
prejudiced, you would be able to read it as a suggestion. we clearly
differ in our understanding of 'tell' -- and it's of course my fault, as
my english is certainly more unlike the official than yours.
More information about the R-devel