[Rcpp-devel] statement about rcpp11 ?

Scott Ritchie sritchie73 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 01:32:24 CEST 2014

Hi all,

I'll throw in my two cents as well.

I personally found it confusing when I first encountered Rcpp11 some time
ago. This entirely stemmed from my lack of knowledge about the exact
distinction between C++ and C++11, and the boundary between Rcpp and C++ (I
was learning Rcpp/C++ as I went, working from a rudimentary knowledge of C).

So I think Jonathon's suggestion of FAQ entries would be useful, if only
for those who dive into Rcpp without knowing a whole lot about C++ to begin


Scott Ritchie

On 30 September 2014 07:08, Romain Francois <romain at r-enthusiasts.com>

> If you want to have a private conversation with Dirk, just email him
> directly: edd at debian.org
> Now since this is all in the open, let me participate to this.
> Le 29 sept. 2014 à 22:42, Jonathon Love <jon at thon.cc> a écrit :
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > hey dirk,
> >
> > i was wondering if you could let us know your thoughts about Rcpp11.
> >
> > i've found it a little bit confusing, because at first i thought people
> > were just talking about Rcpp (which happens to be at version 0.11).
> I also found it confusing that Rcpp's version became 0.11.*
> I guess we had it coming after 0.10.* since apparently for some reason it
> is trapped in the 0.* land forever
> > then
> > i thought it was a newer version of Rcpp, but of course it isn't. then
> > i thought it was a version of Rcpp for use with C++11
> > (because presumably Rcpp doesn't support C++11... but of course it does).
> Yes you can use C++11 with Rcpp, and for that matter you can even use
> C++11 without Rcpp. You can do arcane .Call stuff on the outside and have
> C++11 code inside.
> Now Rcpp11 is a complete redesign, focusing on C++11, it means that it
> actively uses C++11, as opposed to let you use it.
> It has also allowed us to step back from mistakes that were made along the
> way when developing Rcpp such as (this is just one example) complexity of
> too many undocumented constructors for *Vector classes. Doing this is
> impossible with Rcpp which has to carry the weight of dependency.
> > so the name alone appears to have been chosen to maximise confusion
> Not at all. Rcpp11 stands for R and C++11.
> From my point of view, the confusion comes from the versioning of Rcpp.
> Perhaps Rcpp will hit version 0.14.* when I start working on Rcpp14 soon.
> How convenient would that be.
> > but
> > i was wondering what you thought about it technically. do you see it
> > replacing ol' Rcpp, and new projects should make an effort to use it
> > instead? do you see Rcpp being retired as a result? what is the future
> > of repp?
> They will coexist, are maintained by two different persons who have
> different goals. And that's fine.
> Right now CRAN makes it difficult to depend on Rcpp11, but we have
> implemented a workaround, so the next version of Rcpp11 (to be released
> when the next R is released) will be CRAN proof.
> Just use whatever version is best for your needs. I'm spending a great
> deal of energy and time (although perhaps not lately) on developing Rcpp11,
> but I still use Rcpp for projects for which it makes sense, e.g. dplyr uses
> Rcpp.
> > perhaps these might make good FAQ entries.
> >
> > with thanks
> >
> > jonathon
> _______________________________________________
> Rcpp-devel mailing list
> Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20140930/2b916e2a/attachment.html>

More information about the Rcpp-devel mailing list