[R] The Origins of R

[Mark Difford]

>> 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.