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

[Dominick Samperi]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Romain Francois
<romain at r-enthusiasts.com>wrote:

> Le 17/11/10 17:16, Dominick Samperi a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Romain Francois
>> <romain at r-enthusiasts.com <mailto:romain at r-enthusiasts.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Le 17/11/10 16:09, Dominick Samperi a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>        On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Shane Conway
>>        <shane.conway at gmail.com <mailto:shane.conway at gmail.com>
>>        <mailto:shane.conway at gmail.com <mailto:shane.conway at gmail.com>>>
>>
>>        wrote:
>>
>>            Dominick,
>>
>>            My 2 cents:
>>
>>            Nobody gets to decide when something is dead; it's more a
>>        consensus
>>            view driven by everyone who uses or contributes.  Looking
>>        back at the
>>            RcppTemplate archive, I think that characterization is pretty
>>            accurate:
>>        http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/.
>>              A similar look at the most recent version of Rcpp shows
>>        that it's
>>            alive and well:
>>        http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/Rcpp/.
>>            We should all be nothing but thankful that Dirk and Romain
>>        stepped in
>>            and contributed so much.
>>
>>            You are mentioned in every Rcpp source file and in the package
>>            documentation.  Beyond that, the old package was most
>>        definitely dead.
>>
>>
>>        All citations have date ranges: 2005-2006 (the "Rcpp Classic"
>>        era), and
>>        that
>>        is quite different from Nov 2009 (see previous discussion). The
>> work
>>        that you are so
>>        grateful for occurred *after* Nov 2009, not before.
>>
>>        I am also grateful for this work, Romain is obviously a talented
>>        programmer,
>>        and the support provided by Romain and Dirk is a valuable
>>        service, as I
>>        have said before.
>>
>>
>>    We cannot say the same about your service, unless we use a sarcasm
>>    scale.
>>
>>
>>        I wish I did not have to maintain cxxPack, much of it should be
>> part
>>        of Rcpp,
>>
>>
>>    no way. get lost.
>>
>>
>>        but working cooperatively on this seems to be out of the
>>        question.
>>
>>
>>    We are very open for collaboration. Rcpp has now 4 developers, who
>>    have various interest. We are always listening to the mailing list
>>    and often implement things in response to a question on the maing
>>    list (for example sugar was community-trigerred, another example is
>>    code I commited today).
>>
>>    We however have no (even remote) interest in collaborating with you
>>    or anyone who would be that repeatedly annoying. Developping Rcpp is
>>    a lot of work, it is also a lot of fun. Dealing with you is just a
>>    plain source of pain.
>>
>>
>> Too bad Romain, as I think we could do good work together, but you are
>> obviously
>> under some kind of spell. If you change you mind you are welcome to work
>> with me
>> on cxxPack.
>>
>
> Why on earth would I ever want to work with you ?
>
> I don't like your attitude, I don't like your code, your lack of respect
> for pretty much anyone but yourself, ... should I keep going ?
>

I think I have shown a fair amount of respect for you, but that spell seems
to make you blind.


>
> I've read your cxxPack vignette and there is nothing in there I find
> interesting, so even if someone else was doing it, I would not be interested
> in participating anyway.
>
> Romain
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20101117/a1824636/attachment.htm>