[Rcpp-devel] Planning to remove the MSVC patch

[Dominick Samperi]

It is possible to load the code into R (without recompiling R), but your
post (and the original post) has destroyed any motivation I might have
had to explain.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Davor Cubranic <cubranic at stat.ubc.ca>wrote:

> And this response is clearly a flame with (also) an obvious bias and no
> constructive contribution towards the issue at hand.
>
> Leaving bias, politics, and copyright aside, let's answer question 1:
> why compile Rcpp with VC if you won't be able to load that code into R?
>
> Davor
>
>
> On August 30, 2010 08:26:39 am Dominick Samperi wrote:
> > Play by the rules? Attract the wrong crowd? Lower our standards?
> > This is clearly a political post with an obvious bias.
> >
> > Such propaganda would probably be frowned upon if it wasn't for the
> > fact the the person who posted this message is also the
> > mailing list maintainer.
> >
> > Free software ideology and R-Forge emerged to facilitate sharing,
> > not to be used as tools to build empires.
> >
> > As Romain does *all* of the development, creative work, and
> > quality control, he should decide where to go with this, not a
> > politician.
> >
> > Dominick
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
> wrote:
> > > Having discussed this some more with Romain who has no strong views
> > > on the matter, I am inclined to the remove the patch that added
> > > the ability for
> > >
> > > compilation with MSVC as I cannnot come up with answers to these
> questions:
> > >  i)   Why would it make sense to have this? Honestly, what is it
> > >  good for
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >       compile Rcpp _in isolation_ when one cannot load the
> > >       resulting object code in R ?
> > >
> > >  ii)  The new files lack proper headers, credits, copyrights.  Our
> > >  code
> > >
> > > plays
> > >
> > >       by the rules in terms of credits, copyrights and licensing. I
> > >       see no reason to lower our standards and risk getting into
> > >       trouble when as per i) there is no reason or upside anyway.
> > >
> > >  iii) I fear it attracts the wrong crowd of Windows users with
> > >  little
> > >
> > >       knowledge about R, and little C/C++ understanding outside
> > >       their cherished IDE.  If people want something for Visual
> > >       Whatever, I just learned from Bryan Lewis the other day that
> > >       he is working on an Rserve-on-Windows improvement -- see
> > >       http://illposed.net/rserve.html and in particular the last
> > >       paragraph. That is a better route as it
> > >
> > > may
> > >
> > >       actually work with dotWhatever etc.
> > >
> > > But before I remove the patch I would like to hear from potential
> > > users (ideally: others than just the patch submitters) as to why
> > > this would be a bad idea.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Dirk
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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-d
> > > evel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20100830/0aab1d12/attachment.htm>