On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Romain Francois <[email protected]>wrote:
> Le 17/11/10 17:16, Dominick Samperi a écrit : > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Romain Francois >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Le 17/11/10 16:09, Dominick Samperi a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Shane Conway >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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. >> >> >> We cannot say the same about your service, unless we use a sarcasm >> scale. >> >> >> I wish I did not have to maintain cxxPack, much of it should be >> part >> of Rcpp, >> >> >> no way. get lost. >> >> >> but working cooperatively on this seems to be out of the >> question. >> >> >> We are very open for collaboration. Rcpp has now 4 developers, who >> have various interest. We are always listening to the mailing list >> and often implement things in response to a question on the maing >> list (for example sugar was community-trigerred, another example is >> code I commited today). >> >> We however have no (even remote) interest in collaborating with you >> or anyone who would be that repeatedly annoying. Developping Rcpp is >> a lot of work, it is also a lot of fun. Dealing with you is just a >> plain source of pain. >> >> >> Too bad Romain, as I think we could do good work together, but you are >> obviously >> under some kind of spell. If you change you mind you are welcome to work >> with me >> on cxxPack. >> > > Why on earth would I ever want to work with you ? > > I don't like your attitude, I don't like your code, your lack of respect > for pretty much anyone but yourself, ... should I keep going ? > I think I have shown a fair amount of respect for you, but that spell seems to make you blind. > > I've read your cxxPack vignette and there is nothing in there I find > interesting, so even if someone else was doing it, I would not be interested > in participating anyway. > > Romain > > > -- > 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
