[Rcpp-devel] Dependence on GNU make because of $(shell)

[Dominick Samperi]

I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve
this objectively. I also granted that Romain made major contributions
after Nov 2009, so Rcpp today is a different animal. This thread started
with your remark that my prior work, work that is the foundation for
the current Rcpp package, was left "dead and rotting." The purpose
of my reply was to correct this misleading remark.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:

>
> On 16 November 2010 at 20:49, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> | Isn't the use the name 'Rcpp' an import?
> | You have simply taken my song and are singing it in your own way!
>
> Boy this is getting so old.
>
> You left the package name Rcpp in _February of 2006_ at _your own choosing_
> when you (for no apparent reason) switched to using RcppTemplate. [1]
>
> When the renaissance of what is now a striving Rcpp package started in
> November 2008, your most recent package in this space was RcppTemplate
> (rotting for at the time 24 months as it was).  You left Rcpp, we picked it
> up.  There simply is no monopolizing of CRAN "package namespaces" esp when
> there are no releases.  You had left.  Either way, nobody was blocking you
> in
> doing work with RcppTemplate, you then chose to leave that too (twice, in
> fact, in 2006 and again in 2009). By repeating this mantra of 'Rcpp was my
> name' it doesn't become true. No other CRAN maintainer has naming
> monopolies
> either. You had left the way for re-use by switching away.
>
> Moreover, the intent always was to provide an option for users of Rcpp /
> RcppTemplate -- who were left hanging dry.  As we were (and are) supporting
> the (old) Rcpp API as well -- which had been abandonded at the time by you
> as
> it now -- the name is quite appropriate.
>
> And yes, you were then and are now credited in every release. And every
> source file containing code that goes back to you. So enough already!
>
> Lastly, for your repeated and still false claims that all our work is based
> on yours (which we will continue to fight tooth and nail as one should with
> outrageous lies such as this one which border on libel too): exactly where
> did you write and publish all those features one now finds in Rcpp that
> were
> neither in your Rcpp, nor in your RcppTemplate, nor in your current cxxPack
> ?
> If you continue to claim that we took them from somewhere, can you show us
> where from?
>
> The fact of the matter is that there is some obviousness in how you call
> accessor / transformer functions for proxy model classes (an idea going
> back
> to 2001 at least and not one you can sanely claim as your idea either).  So
> we ended up with function names as() and wrap() for templates and you say
> so
> did you.  So what?  I think we also both ended calling the namespace 'Rcpp'
> as that is the obvious choice.  What else would one call it?  WrigleyField?
> AbbeyRoad?  Gee.
>
> Unimpressed and bored by all this, Dirk
>
>
> [1] http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/
>
> --
> Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20101116/750da9e8/attachment.htm>