Le 17/11/10 05:28, Dominick Samperi a écrit :
I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve
this objectively.
Please people who care, step forward and do as the man says.
I also granted that Romain made major contributions
after Nov 2009, so Rcpp today is a different animal. This thread started
with your remark that my prior work, work that is the foundation for
the current Rcpp package, was left "dead and rotting." The purpose
of my reply was to correct this misleading remark.
The purpose of your email was :
- to claim credit for work you did before we took over: you do have that
credit, explicitely in many places starting from the DESCRIPTION file.
- to claim credit for work we have done after. this is just not going to
happen, however many times and ways you try to get it. This work has
nothing to do with you.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 16 November 2010 at 20:49, Dominick Samperi wrote:
| Isn't the use the name 'Rcpp' an import?
| You have simply taken my song and are singing it in your own way!
Boy this is getting so old.
You left the package name Rcpp in _February of 2006_ at _your own
choosing_
when you (for no apparent reason) switched to using RcppTemplate. [1]
When the renaissance of what is now a striving Rcpp package started in
November 2008, your most recent package in this space was RcppTemplate
(rotting for at the time 24 months as it was). You left Rcpp, we
picked it
up. There simply is no monopolizing of CRAN "package namespaces"
esp when
there are no releases. You had left. Either way, nobody was
blocking you in
doing work with RcppTemplate, you then chose to leave that too
(twice, in
fact, in 2006 and again in 2009). By repeating this mantra of 'Rcpp
was my
name' it doesn't become true. No other CRAN maintainer has naming
monopolies
either. You had left the way for re-use by switching away.
Moreover, the intent always was to provide an option for users of Rcpp /
RcppTemplate -- who were left hanging dry. As we were (and are)
supporting
the (old) Rcpp API as well -- which had been abandonded at the time
by you as
it now -- the name is quite appropriate.
And yes, you were then and are now credited in every release. And every
source file containing code that goes back to you. So enough already!
Lastly, for your repeated and still false claims that all our work
is based
on yours (which we will continue to fight tooth and nail as one
should with
outrageous lies such as this one which border on libel too): exactly
where
did you write and publish all those features one now finds in Rcpp
that were
neither in your Rcpp, nor in your RcppTemplate, nor in your current
cxxPack ?
If you continue to claim that we took them from somewhere, can you
show us
where from?
The fact of the matter is that there is some obviousness in how you call
accessor / transformer functions for proxy model classes (an idea
going back
to 2001 at least and not one you can sanely claim as your idea
either). So
we ended up with function names as() and wrap() for templates and
you say so
did you. So what? I think we also both ended calling the namespace
'Rcpp'
as that is the obvious choice. What else would one call it?
WrigleyField?
AbbeyRoad? Gee.
Unimpressed and bored by all this, Dirk
[1] http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
--
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr
|- http://bit.ly/9VOd3l : ZAT! 2010
|- http://bit.ly/c6DzuX : Impressionnism with R
`- http://bit.ly/czHPM7 : Rcpp Google tech talk on youtube
_______________________________________________
Rcpp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
