On 16 November 2010 at 23:28, Dominick Samperi wrote: | I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve | this objectively.
Please show us such a diff and put some proof into this pudding. Or else stop harping about a non-existing issue. Time to "put up or shut up". | 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. Not it wasn't. I will stand by "dead and rotting". Look, it's simple. RQuantLib was always a user of Rcpp, and I can assure you that by late 2008 your code __which had not been touched in 2 years__ no longer even compiled under current g++ versions. I was using it. I believe CRAN had even moved the package off the main page as it didn't build, and you obviously didn't care for it. So I fixed that and started making extensions; see the ChangeLog for the initial changes as well as everything we all did since. The per-project SVN commit counter for Rcpp is now at over 2400. That's 2400 individual changesets, sometimes small and sometimes large. In the space of two years. Whereas you left RcppTemplate without single character changes in three years when it didn't even build. That's what I call "dead and rotting". And I for one do not think it is a coincidence that you come back another year later bringing the rot to then _three years_ with a short-lived update. And I suspect that without the ongoing Rcpp work you would never have done that brief camoe re-appearance of RcppTemplate. Anyway, "dead and rotting" it was and yes, please do provide proof for your allegations. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
