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

[Romain Francois]

Le 17/11/10 15:38, Dominick Samperi a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org
> <mailto:edd at debian.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 16 November 2010 at 23:28, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>     | I explained already how anyone who cares can do a diff and resolve
>     | this objectively.
>
>     Please show us such a diff and put some proof into this pudding.
>
>     Or else stop harping about a non-existing issue.  Time to "put up or
>     shut up".
>
>     | 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.
>
>     Not it wasn't. I will stand by "dead and rotting".
>
>     Look, it's simple. RQuantLib was always a user of Rcpp, and I can
>     assure you
>     that by late 2008 your code __which had not been touched in 2 years__ no
>     longer even compiled under current g++ versions. I was using it. I
>     believe
>     CRAN had even moved the package off the main page as it didn't
>     build, and you
>     obviously didn't care for it.  So I fixed that and started making
>     extensions;
>     see the ChangeLog for the initial changes as well as everything we
>     all did
>     since. The per-project SVN commit counter for Rcpp is now at over 2400.
>     That's 2400 individual changesets, sometimes small and sometimes
>     large. In
>     the space of two years.  Whereas you left RcppTemplate without single
>     character changes in three years when it didn't even build. That's
>     what I
>     call "dead and rotting".
>
>     And I for one do not think it is a coincidence that you come back
>     another
>     year later bringing the rot to then _three years_ with a short-lived
>     update. And I suspect that without the ongoing Rcpp work you would
>     never have
>     done that brief camoe re-appearance of RcppTemplate.
>
>     Anyway, "dead and rotting" it was and yes, please do provide proof
>     for your
>     allegations.
>
>
> I have already provided proof in the form of your own words Dirk. The
> quote from Rcpp 0.8.3 that was cited earlier in this thread first appeared
> in Rcpp 0.6.7 (released Nov 8, 2009), shortly after my release of
> RcppTemplate 6.1 (release Nov 6, 2009), and before Romain joined
> the Rcpp project. Thus if anybody cares to diff, the relevant versions
> are Rcpp 0.6.7 and RcppTemplate 6.1 (the name RcppTemplate was
> chosen to limit confusion between the package name and the
> library name, BTW).

It seems ... nobody cares.

> I wonder how the authors of the recently released neural network package
> would feel if they saw another package author make similar remarks just
> days after the release of their hard work, followed by a wholesale
> effort to reimplement their work in another package.

Maybe you should ask them.

> On Rcpp::as and Rcpp::wrap, the first is alternate syntax ("sugar")
> for a C++ SEXP constructor, and the function of Rcpp::wrap was performed
> by what I called getSEXP(). There was also some use of STL classes
> to facilitate streaming C++ to R objects. My versions were in the prototype
> phase, not as comprehensive as what was implemented later by
> Romain, but the main ideas were there in RcppTemplate.

So you keep assuming, and confusing people that I took inspiration from 
you. That's your fantasy.

> Shortly after the release of my work others joined the Rcpp team, the
> pace of development increased dramatically, and it became clear that
> to avoid wasting my time I needed to take my work in a different
> direction, so I withdrew RcppTemplate and created cxxPack.

Whatever works for you.

> It is ironic that cxxPack is actually just the underlying plumbing for
> number of packages that I have developed over the years and was planning
> to release to CRAN, but I have been somewhat reluctant to do this
> in view of my experiences with Rcpp/cxxPack.

Great. It seems closed source is the best fit for you.

> Finally, who decides when a package is "dead and rotting"? The
> person who wants to take it over?
>
> Dominick

-- 
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr
|- http://bit.ly/9VOd3l : ZAT! 2010
|- http://bit.ly/c6DzuX : Impressionnism with R
`- http://bit.ly/czHPM7 : Rcpp Google tech talk on youtube