On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Robert Wilkins <irishhacker@gmail.com>wrote:

> ...The user interface for R, otherwise known as the S programming language
> has the same origins as C and Unix....


We could take this one step further, and note that C's design (its "user
interface"?) was based on BCPL, which was developed at Cambridge University
and MIT (which was in turn loosely based on CPL).  But BCPL declined into
obscurity, while we're still stuck witxxx benefitting from C.

As for Unix, most of its ideas came from Multics (developed mostly at MIT,
but with Bell Labs and GE). And some of the core ideas and utilities of
Multics came from CTSS (also MIT) -- Unix roff/nroff/troff was a knock-off
of CTSS's runoff, for example.  But Multics failed and Unix succeeded.

Fast forward a few years, and Unix itself was (alas) fading into marginality
until GNU/Linux* came around. (I had a front-row seat at this decline as a
staffer at OSF.) As with R/S, the specification was of course important, but
the dynamics were completely changed by the development of a free and open
version.  The NYT reporter correctly focussed on the success of R.

I do agree that the core of R could use renewal and rethinking, and that
many free/open projects have been reimplementations of existing designs. But
there is also innovation within the framework of R, such as Hadley Wickham's
ggplot2.

Is it enough?  It never is....

            -s

* Speaking of giving credit where credit is due, Stallman is absolutely
right when he insists on recognition for the huge contribution of the GNU
project to GNU/Linux, though it's no doubt to late to insist on the full
name....

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]


