[R] The Origins of R

[Duncan Murdoch]

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.
>> 
>> 
>