[R] The Origins of R

[Mark Difford]

>> >>> 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.