On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Shane Conway <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dominick, > > My 2 cents: > > Nobody gets to decide when something is dead; it's more a consensus > view driven by everyone who uses or contributes. Looking back at the > RcppTemplate archive, I think that characterization is pretty > accurate: http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/. > A similar look at the most recent version of Rcpp shows that it's > alive and well: http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/Rcpp/. > We should all be nothing but thankful that Dirk and Romain stepped in > and contributed so much. > > You are mentioned in every Rcpp source file and in the package > documentation. Beyond that, the old package was most definitely dead. > All citations have date ranges: 2005-2006 (the "Rcpp Classic" era), and that is quite different from Nov 2009 (see previous discussion). The work that you are so grateful for occurred *after* Nov 2009, not before. I am also grateful for this work, Romain is obviously a talented programmer, and the support provided by Romain and Dirk is a valuable service, as I have said before. I wish I did not have to maintain cxxPack, much of it should be part of Rcpp, but working cooperatively on this seems to be out of the question. > Shane > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Dominick Samperi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > > I have already provided proof in the form of your own words Dirk. The > > quote from Rcpp 0.8.3 that was cited earlier in this thread first > appeared > > in Rcpp 0.6.7 (released Nov 8, 2009), shortly after my release of > > RcppTemplate 6.1 (release Nov 6, 2009), and before Romain joined > > the Rcpp project. Thus if anybody cares to diff, the relevant versions > > are Rcpp 0.6.7 and RcppTemplate 6.1 (the name RcppTemplate was > > chosen to limit confusion between the package name and the > > library name, BTW). > > > > I wonder how the authors of the recently released neural network package > > would feel if they saw another package author make similar remarks just > > days after the release of their hard work, followed by a wholesale > > effort to reimplement their work in another package. > > > > On Rcpp::as and Rcpp::wrap, the first is alternate syntax ("sugar") > > for a C++ SEXP constructor, and the function of Rcpp::wrap was performed > > by what I called getSEXP(). There was also some use of STL classes > > to facilitate streaming C++ to R objects. My versions were in the > prototype > > phase, not as comprehensive as what was implemented later by > > Romain, but the main ideas were there in RcppTemplate. > > > > Shortly after the release of my work others joined the Rcpp team, the > > pace of development increased dramatically, and it became clear that > > to avoid wasting my time I needed to take my work in a different > > direction, so I withdrew RcppTemplate and created cxxPack. > > > > It is ironic that cxxPack is actually just the underlying plumbing for > > number of packages that I have developed over the years and was planning > > to release to CRAN, but I have been somewhat reluctant to do this > > in view of my experiences with Rcpp/cxxPack. > > > > Finally, who decides when a package is "dead and rotting"? The > > person who wants to take it over? > > > > Dominick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rcpp-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
