In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of mischief making. Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times article: ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to take the software home, or copy it down from the web. There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a follow-up. Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and Graphics Using R", we have: "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and Allan Wilks". The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be used.] That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development of S, a kind of pre-history of R. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
John, I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would call it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! Regards, Tom John Maindonald wrote:> In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been > made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to > the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and > will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of > mischief making. > > Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times > article: > ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up > during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better > suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and > produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software > had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? > The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up > during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this > seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty > believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate > dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to > take the software home, or copy it down from the web. > There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the > language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer > pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but > its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a > follow-up. > Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that > has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions > "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions > (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in > the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be > totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! > > In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and > Graphics Using R", we have: > "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was > developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and > Allan Wilks". > The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter > 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". > [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be > used.] > That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one > complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! > > There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its > connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for > Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development > of S, a kind of pre-history of R. > > John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au > phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 > Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, > John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) > Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.-- Thomas E Adams National Weather Service Ohio River Forecast Center 1901 South State Route 134 Wilmington, OH 45177 EMAIL: thomas.adams at noaa.gov VOICE: 937-383-0528 FAX: 937-383-0033
On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote:> John, > > I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would > call > it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & > contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! > > Regards, > Tom > > John Maindonald wrote: >> In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been >> made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to >> the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and >> will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of >> mischief making.<snip> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness. cheers, Rolf Turner ###################################################################### Attention: This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal www.marshalsoftware.com ######################################################################
>> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness.Indeed, indeed. But I do not feel that that is necessarily the case. Credit should be given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the issue that is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie in his reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect of the story. Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief making" or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee-jerk reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a criticism of a poorly researched article. It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs in R. Regards, Mark. Rolf Turner-3 wrote:> > > On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote: > >> John, >> >> I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" ? I would >> call >> it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers & >> contributors. "Mischief making" indeed! >> >> Regards, >> Tom >> >> John Maindonald wrote: >>> In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been >>> made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to >>> the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and >>> will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of >>> mischief making. > > <snip> > > Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness. > > cheers, > > Rolf Turner > ###################################################################### > Attention: > This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. > Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. > > This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal > www.marshalsoftware.com > ###################################################################### > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > >-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21825547.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rolf Turner wrote:> The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness. >utterly self-ironic. vQ
It seems to me that the "other side" from John's post here have complaints resulting from how newspapers operate. While few readers here are likely to have much direct experience with newspapers, a lot (I presume) have experience with submitting papers to journals. Such experience is likely to include demands to cut out large portions of the original in order to cut down on page count. The same process operates in newspapers, but to the third power (and generally under considerable time pressure). My reaction to the section of the original NYT article under discussion was that it was a disjointed mess due to editing rather than a slight to anyone anywhere. Patrick Burns patrick at burns-stat.com +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of "The R Inferno" and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User") John Maindonald wrote:> In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been > made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to > the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and > will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of > mischief making. > > Discussion has centered around the following quote from the NY Times > article: > ?According to them, the notion of devising something like R sprang up > during a hallway conversation. They both wanted technology better > suited for their statistics students, who needed to analyze data and > produce graphical models of the information. Most comparable software > had been designed by computer scientists and proved hard to use.? > The comment that "the notion of devising something like R sprang up > during a hallway conversation" is strictly true. Certainly, this > seems like a very plausible account. I'd have more difficulty > believing that the notion was communicated to them in separate > dreams. Part of the wanted technology was freedom for students to > take the software home, or copy it down from the web. > There was a further story to be told, about the origins of the > language that Ross and Robert implemented and adapted. The NY writer > pretty much left out that part of the story (S did get a mention, but > its connection with R did not), but did remedy this omission in a > follow-up. > Nor did the article do much to acknowledge the workers and work that > has gone into R's continuing development. Getting the attributions > "right" is difficult. Even if "right" according to common conventions > (and one can argue as to just what the conventions are, especially in > the matter of computer language development), they are unlikely to be > totally fair. Stigler's Law of Eponomy has wide sway! > > In the preface to the first and second edition of "Data Analysis and > Graphics Using R", we have: > "The R system implements a dialect of the S language that was > developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories by Rick Becker, John Chambers and > Allan Wilks". > The only 1st edition attribution to Ihaka and Gentleman was in Chapter > 12: "For citing R in a publication, use Ihaka and Gentleman (1996)". > [NB: Type citation() to see the form of citation that should now be > used.] > That was as it now strikes me unfair to Ross and Robert, but no-one > complained. Perhaps no-one ever read that far through the preface! > > There's an excellent brief summary of the history of R, and its > connections with S, in Section 1.4 of John Chambers' "Software for > Data Analysis". Appendix A has further details on the development > of S, a kind of pre-history of R. > > John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au > phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 > Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, > John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) > Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > >
Patrick Burns likely is closest to the truth in noting that the editing of the NYT article was possibly savage. The author is probably fuming, and can't do much or he'll not get future work. I was a columnist for Interface Age and then a sub-editor for Byte in the early 80s. If an ad came in close to the deadline for printing, my math articles could get very scrambled, and some people close to the subject would get mad at me. All I could do was send them the original copy. But it's really worth remembering that there is rarely any bad publicity if one wants to get noticed -- as I assume we want R to be. It's a pity the furore on this list isn't more in the popular media. JN
On 04-Feb-09 20:45:04, Nutter, Benjamin wrote:> <snip> > Those of us on this list (with the possible exception of one or > two nutters) would take it that it goes without saying that R was > developed on the basis of S --- we all ***know*** that. > <snip> > > Just want to clarify that the nutters referred to here are not > the same as the Nutters that bear my name :-)Surely the Nutters are a Movement or a Party[1] whose members are nutters? [1] In the UK we have long had the Monster Raving Loony Party, which (at least in a 1990 bye-election) made a serious dent in the political scene. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Raving_Looney_Party :-) Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 04-Feb-09 Time: 21:04:55 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------