[Rd] Package inclusion in R core implementation

J C Nash
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:20:16 -0000

I concur with Avraham that capabilities need to be ensured e.g., in recommended
packages. I should have mentioned that. My concern is that the core should be
focused on the programming language aspects. The computational math and some of
the more
intricate data management could better be handled by folk outside the core.

JN

On 2019-03-04 9:12 a.m., Avraham Adler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:01 PM J C Nash <profjcnash at gmail.com
<mailto:profjcnash at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     As the original coder (in mid 1970s) of BFGS, CG and Nelder-Mead in
optim(), I've
>     been pushing for some time for their deprecation. They aren't
"bad", but we have
>     better tools, and they are in CRAN packages. Similarly, I believe other
optimization
>     tools in the core (optim::L-BFGS-B, nlm, nlminb) can and should be
moved to
>     packages (there are already 2 versions at least of LBFGS that I and
Matt Fidler
>     are merging). And optim::SANN does not match any usual expectations of
users.
>
>     I'm sure there are other tools for other tasks that can and should
move to packages
>     to streamline the work of our core team. However, I can understand that
there is this
>     awkward issue of actually doing this. I know I'm willing to help
with preparing
>     "Transition Guide" documentation and scripts, and would be
surprised if there are
>     not others. R already has a policy of full support only for current
version, so
>     hanging on to antique tools (the three codes at the top are based on
papers all
>     of which now qualify for >50 years old) seems inconsistent with
other messages.
>
>     For information: I'm coordinating a project to build understanding
of what
>     older algorithms are in R as the histoRicalg project. See
>     https://gitlab.com/nashjc/histoRicalg. We welcome participation.
>
>     Best, JN
>
>     On 2019-03-04 7:59 a.m., Jim Hester wrote:
>     > Conversely, what is the process to remove a package from core R?
It seems
>     > to me some (many?) of the packages included are there more out of
>     > historical accident rather than any technical need to be in the
core
>     > distribution. Having them as a core (or recommended) package makes
them
>     > harder update independently to R and makes testing, development
and
>     > contribution more cumbersome.
>     >
>     > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:35 AM Morgan Morgan <morgan.emailbox
at gmail.com <mailto:morgan.emailbox at gmail.com>>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> It sometimes happens that some packages get included to R like
for example
>     >> the parallel package.
>     >>
>     >> I was wondering if there is a process to decide whether or not
to include a
>     >> package in the core implementation of R?
>     >>
>     >> For example, why not include the Rcpp package, which became
for a lot of
>     >> user the main tool to extend R?
>     >>
>     >> What is our view on the (not so well known) dotCall64 package
which is an
>     >> interesting alternative for extending R?
>     >>
>     >> Thank you
>     >> Best regards,
>     >> Morgan
>     >>
>
>
> I have No arguments with updating code to more correct or modern versions,
but I think that as a design decision, base R
> should have optimization routines as opposed to it being an external
package which conceptually could be orphaned. Or at
> least some package gets made recommended and adopted by R core.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Avi
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile