<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Shane Conway <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shane.conway@gmail.com">shane.conway@gmail.com</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;">
Dominick,<br>
<br>
My 2 cents:<br>
<br>
Nobody gets to decide when something is dead; it's more a consensus<br>
view driven by everyone who uses or contributes. Looking back at the<br>
RcppTemplate archive, I think that characterization is pretty<br>
accurate: <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>
A similar look at the most recent version of Rcpp shows that it's<br>
alive and well: <a href="http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/Rcpp/" target="_blank">http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/Rcpp/</a>.<br>
We should all be nothing but thankful that Dirk and Romain stepped in<br>
and contributed so much.<br>
<br>
You are mentioned in every Rcpp source file and in the package<br>
documentation. Beyond that, the old package was most definitely dead.<br></blockquote><div><br>All citations have date ranges: 2005-2006 (the "Rcpp Classic" era), and that <br>is quite different from Nov 2009 (see previous discussion). The work that you are so<br>
grateful for occurred *after* Nov 2009, not before.<br><br>I am also grateful for this work, Romain is obviously a talented programmer,<br>and the support provided by Romain and Dirk is a valuable service, as I<br>have said before.<br>
<br>I wish I did not have to maintain cxxPack, much of it should be part<br>of Rcpp, but working cooperatively on this seems to be out of the<br>question.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
Shane<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Dominick Samperi <<a href="mailto:djsamperi@gmail.com">djsamperi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <<a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 16 November 2010 at 23:28, Dominick Samperi wrote:<br>
>> | I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve<br>
>> | this objectively.<br>
>><br>
>> Please show us such a diff and put some proof into this pudding.<br>
>><br>
>> Or else stop harping about a non-existing issue. Time to "put up or shut<br>
>> up".<br>
>><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>
>> Not it wasn't. I will stand by "dead and rotting".<br>
>><br>
>> Look, it's simple. RQuantLib was always a user of Rcpp, and I can assure<br>
>> you<br>
>> that by late 2008 your code __which had not been touched in 2 years__ no<br>
>> longer even compiled under current g++ versions. I was using it. I believe<br>
>> CRAN had even moved the package off the main page as it didn't build, and<br>
>> you<br>
>> obviously didn't care for it. So I fixed that and started making<br>
>> extensions;<br>
>> see the ChangeLog for the initial changes as well as everything we all did<br>
>> since. The per-project SVN commit counter for Rcpp is now at over 2400.<br>
>> That's 2400 individual changesets, sometimes small and sometimes large. In<br>
>> the space of two years. Whereas you left RcppTemplate without single<br>
>> character changes in three years when it didn't even build. That's what I<br>
>> call "dead and rotting".<br>
>><br>
>> And I for one do not think it is a coincidence that you come back another<br>
>> year later bringing the rot to then _three years_ with a short-lived<br>
>> update. And I suspect that without the ongoing Rcpp work you would never<br>
>> have<br>
>> done that brief camoe re-appearance of RcppTemplate.<br>
>><br>
>> Anyway, "dead and rotting" it was and yes, please do provide proof for<br>
>> your<br>
>> allegations.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I have already provided proof in the form of your own words Dirk. The<br>
> quote from Rcpp 0.8.3 that was cited earlier in this thread first appeared<br>
> in Rcpp 0.6.7 (released Nov 8, 2009), shortly after my release of<br>
> RcppTemplate 6.1 (release Nov 6, 2009), and before Romain joined<br>
> the Rcpp project. Thus if anybody cares to diff, the relevant versions<br>
> are Rcpp 0.6.7 and RcppTemplate 6.1 (the name RcppTemplate was<br>
> chosen to limit confusion between the package name and the<br>
> library name, BTW).<br>
><br>
> I wonder how the authors of the recently released neural network package<br>
> would feel if they saw another package author make similar remarks just<br>
> days after the release of their hard work, followed by a wholesale<br>
> effort to reimplement their work in another package.<br>
><br>
> On Rcpp::as and Rcpp::wrap, the first is alternate syntax ("sugar")<br>
> for a C++ SEXP constructor, and the function of Rcpp::wrap was performed<br>
> by what I called getSEXP(). There was also some use of STL classes<br>
> to facilitate streaming C++ to R objects. My versions were in the prototype<br>
> phase, not as comprehensive as what was implemented later by<br>
> Romain, but the main ideas were there in RcppTemplate.<br>
><br>
> Shortly after the release of my work others joined the Rcpp team, the<br>
> pace of development increased dramatically, and it became clear that<br>
> to avoid wasting my time I needed to take my work in a different<br>
> direction, so I withdrew RcppTemplate and created cxxPack.<br>
><br>
> It is ironic that cxxPack is actually just the underlying plumbing for<br>
> number of packages that I have developed over the years and was planning<br>
> to release to CRAN, but I have been somewhat reluctant to do this<br>
> in view of my experiences with Rcpp/cxxPack.<br>
><br>
> Finally, who decides when a package is "dead and rotting"? The<br>
> person who wants to take it over?<br>
><br>
> Dominick<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rcpp-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org">Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>