similar to: Gentleman and Ihaka's integrity in question

In their paper, "Lexical Scope and Statistical Computing", the authors ( Gentleman and Ihaka ) go to great length explaining why R's use of lexical scoping creates advantages when doing statistical computations. If anyone has or is familiar with this paper, could they provide the main program code for how the "newton" function would be called in their example on page 500

Hi, The R FAQ suggests that we can cite Ihaka and Gentleman (1996) in publications. Does anyone have an electronic copy of this that could be (legally) made publically available -- my library here doesn't take this journal (Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics). Otherwise, I can order it through interlibrary loan. Thanks, Stephen

Why is the described system preferable to Julia? On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, 4:50 AM peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05 Aug 2016, at 06:41 , Andrew Judson <ajskim at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I read this paper > > <https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~ihaka/downloads/Compstat-2008.pdf> and > > haven't been able to find out what happened - I

I read this paper <https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~ihaka/downloads/Compstat-2008.pdf> and haven't been able to find out what happened - I have seen some sporadic mention in message groups but nothing definitive. Does anyone know? [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Is it conceivable that Julia could be ported to use R syntax in a way that would allow the vastly larger numbers of R programmers to seamlessly switch? Or equivalently, could an iteration of R itself do this? On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, 9:00 AM Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: > When it was being actively worked on, it had the advantage of existing. > > Hadley > > On

But you can easily fall back to R from within Julia; see http://juliastats.github.io/RCall.jl/latest/ On Aug 5, 2016 1:27 PM, "Hadley Wickham" <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: > No. > > Hadley > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it conceivable that Julia could be ported to use R syntax in a way > that

Is anyone in the leadership of the R-project going to contact the New York Times and clarify that the article gave remarkably short shrift to the people who designed the user interface for R, to a large extent AT&T researchers from an earlier generation? It would be the appropriate thing to do. The R team did not develop the user interface for R, the designers of the S programming language

I came across a quite interesting post from Ross Ihaka, thought would be good to share it and get the opinion of folks around here. I am not sure where to post this for the R community but since it has to do with development I thought or R-devel Ross Ihaka Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp From: Ross Ihaka <ih... at stat.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:35:26 +1300 Local: Tues, Jan 22

When it was being actively worked on, it had the advantage of existing. Hadley On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com> wrote: > Why is the described system preferable to Julia? > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, 4:50 AM peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 05 Aug 2016, at 06:41 , Andrew Judson <ajskim at gmail.com>

No. Hadley On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is it conceivable that Julia could be ported to use R syntax in a way that > would allow the vastly larger numbers of R programmers to seamlessly switch? > Or equivalently, could an iteration of R itself do this? > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, 9:00 AM Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at

Hi, I'm a beginner of R. I find it absoluty fantastic, flexible and very extensible. For the moment only a curiosity.. Why the name R? (are they perhaps the initials of Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka?, or is the name correlated with S language?) Sorry for my poor question but I am very curious Thank in advance Paolo C.

I know that this general question has been asked before, but I have encountered a picky reviewer. In the 'standard' reference for R: R. Gentleman and R. Ihaka (1997). "The R language", In Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Interface, L. Billard and N. Fisher Eds. The Interface Foundation of North America. is there a geographical location for the publisher and perhaps

Martin Your revisions to my S--R compatability code suggest that tempfile() is in R after 0.49. I don't find that to be the case. It requires code from Friedrich Leisch which still has to be added as of 0.50 alpha3. Paul _______ R : Copyright 1997, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka Version 0.50 Alpha-3 (August 8, 1997) > exists("tempfile", mode = 'function') [1] FALSE >

Hello all, There is currently a (very !) lively discussions happening around the web, surrounding the following topics: 1) Is R efficient? (scripting wise, and performance wise) 2) Should R be written from scratch? 3) What should be the license of R (if it was made a new)? Very serious people have taken part in the debates so far. I hope to let you know of the places I came by, so you might be

Read this morning >>> R : Copyright 1998, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka >>> Version 0.61.2 Alpha (March 15, 1998) ----- So, there still is no "R beta" around.... - If I didn't know R, would I use a statistics software, if it was still in alpha testing state? - Is this really what we want to tell people about R? More to the point: I think, we could

Muy interesante. Gracias Carlos. Estaba indagando en los orígenes, más que nada como referencia en un documento, pero dan ganas de probar la R 0.49. Creo que la primera que instalé fue R 1.2.0, en un curso que dieron en la universidad allá por el 2000. ¿y vosotros? Saludos El 13/06/13 15:12, Carlos J. Gil Bellosta escribió: > Hola, ¿qué tal? > > Richard A. Becker tiene un

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

This is just a note that R would get a lot more citations if the recommended citation was an article in a recognised journal or from a recognised publisher. I use R in work leading to publications often, and I strongly want to give the R core team credit for their work. However I find that I can't persuade my biological collaborators to include the current R citation (below) in their

I appeal to those entrusted with the keeping of the R flame, the S flame, and the S-Plus flame to relate a bit of history. How did S, S-Plus, and R get their names? Going from S to S-Plus appears clear, a commercial company purchased rights to S, developed a product that they wanted to indicate was related to S, but was more fully developed. This leaves me with only a rumor how S got its original

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Travis Perry <travis.perry at furman.edu> wrote: > Dr. Bates, > Our department is considering replacing existing statistical > software packages in our curriculum with R, at my request. To better inform > this decision we are interested to know the prevalence of R in the published > literature and its use across academic and research