On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:39:51 +0100 Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
> Berwin A Turlach wrote: [...] > why not read some fortunes? I am well aware of those fortunes and maybe you missed the one: > fortune("Watson") Getting flamed for asking dumb questions on a public mailing list is all part of growing up and being a man/woman. -- Michael Watson (in a discussion on whether answers on R-help should be more polite) R-help (December 2004) I am actually wondering where the corresponding fortunes from December 2005, December 2006, December 2007 and December 2009 are since they started of be produced on an annual basis. [...] > >> on the other hand, i have seen quite a few responses that were > >> bashing a user for reporting a non-existent bug or submitting an > >> annoying patch. > >> > > > > In didactic terms those are "negative motivations/reinforcements"; > > opinion differ on how effective they are to reach certain learning > > outcomes. > > > > ah, so what's the difference between the way i pinpoint design flaws > and the way r gurus respond to people, so that i am running with a > chip on my shoulder, and they are being 'negatively > motivating/reinforcing' in didactic terms? [...] Your goal is, presumably, that you want to have the design flaws fixed/discussed/&c. The goal of the R gurus is to avoid having to waste their time on unproductive issues because people do not read documentation/behave contrary to how they are asked to behave/&c. To reach your goal, the controversial approach is counter productive. To reach their goal, the controversial approach can be quite effective. [...] > >> it has been fixed immediately by martin. > >> > > > > Yes, and, again, you could not help yourself telling the developers > > what you think they should do, could you? > > was this really running with a chip: Look up what "running with a chip on your shoulder means" and reflect on the occasions in which I suggested to you that you give the impression of doing so. On this occasion nobody said that you were running around with a chip on your shoulder. > "shouldn't the tests have captured it? i think you should have a check > for every feature following from the docs." > > to which marting responded "yes, we should" But he also made it clear that it would be unlikely that he or any other R-core member would write those tests and that this would probably be left to you; with any contribution being welcome. Consider yourself lucky that this exchange was with Martin, other members of R core might have communicated a similar message in quite another way. That exchange is very much confirming my understanding of the culture of the R community. > > As I try to tell you, that > > is not the way it works. R comes already with extensive tests that > > are run with "make check". If you think some are missing, you > > could send a script and propose that they are included. But > > telling others that they should write such tests is unlikely to > > make it happen. > > haven't done the thing. Come on, read your own quote above: "Shouldn't the tests have captured this? I think you should have a check for every feature following from the docs", If this is not "telling others that they should write such test", then what is? Cheers, Berwin ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel