I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve<br>this objectively. I also granted that Romain made major contributions<br>after Nov 2009, so Rcpp today is a different animal. This thread started<br>with your remark that my prior work, work that is the foundation for<br>
the current Rcpp package, was left "dead and rotting." The purpose<br>of my reply was to correct this misleading remark.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
On 16 November 2010 at 20:49, Dominick Samperi wrote:<br>
| Isn't the use the name 'Rcpp' an import?<br>
| You have simply taken my song and are singing it in your own way!<br>
<br>
</div>Boy this is getting so old.<br>
<br>
You left the package name Rcpp in _February of 2006_ at _your own choosing_<br>
when you (for no apparent reason) switched to using RcppTemplate. [1]<br>
<br>
When the renaissance of what is now a striving Rcpp package started in<br>
November 2008, your most recent package in this space was RcppTemplate<br>
(rotting for at the time 24 months as it was). You left Rcpp, we picked it<br>
up. There simply is no monopolizing of CRAN "package namespaces" esp when<br>
there are no releases. You had left. Either way, nobody was blocking you in<br>
doing work with RcppTemplate, you then chose to leave that too (twice, in<br>
fact, in 2006 and again in 2009). By repeating this mantra of 'Rcpp was my<br>
name' it doesn't become true. No other CRAN maintainer has naming monopolies<br>
either. You had left the way for re-use by switching away.<br>
<br>
Moreover, the intent always was to provide an option for users of Rcpp /<br>
RcppTemplate -- who were left hanging dry. As we were (and are) supporting<br>
the (old) Rcpp API as well -- which had been abandonded at the time by you as<br>
it now -- the name is quite appropriate.<br>
<br>
And yes, you were then and are now credited in every release. And every<br>
source file containing code that goes back to you. So enough already!<br>
<br>
Lastly, for your repeated and still false claims that all our work is based<br>
on yours (which we will continue to fight tooth and nail as one should with<br>
outrageous lies such as this one which border on libel too): exactly where<br>
did you write and publish all those features one now finds in Rcpp that were<br>
neither in your Rcpp, nor in your RcppTemplate, nor in your current cxxPack ?<br>
If you continue to claim that we took them from somewhere, can you show us<br>
where from?<br>
<br>
The fact of the matter is that there is some obviousness in how you call<br>
accessor / transformer functions for proxy model classes (an idea going back<br>
to 2001 at least and not one you can sanely claim as your idea either). So<br>
we ended up with function names as() and wrap() for templates and you say so<br>
did you. So what? I think we also both ended calling the namespace 'Rcpp'<br>
as that is the obvious choice. What else would one call it? WrigleyField?<br>
AbbeyRoad? Gee.<br>
<br>
Unimpressed and bored by all this, Dirk<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/" target="_blank">http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/</a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Dirk Eddelbuettel | <a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a> | <a href="http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com" target="_blank">http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>