So what is the answer to the question: "Can success continue"?
I suspect that R is now so firmly entrenched that it will
inevitably continue, in one or other incarnation, for a long
time to come. The negative factors that John Fox lists
will surely, in time, make some changes inevitable. Will
these come from force of circumstance rather than from
conscious planning?
In an August 12 message I posted details of R citation rates that
I had gleaned, following a lead from Simon Blomberg, from Web
of Science. This, or some such measure, seems to me important
as giving a handle on the penetration of R into statistical
application areas.
The numbers I obtained [I&G = Ihaka & Gentleman 1996; RSTAT is
the citation suggested by citation()] were:
I&G: 1998=4,
1999=15,
2000=17,
2001=39,
2002=119,
2003=276
RSTAT+I&G: 2004:68+455 = 523
2005:433+512 = 945
2006:1049+426 = 1475
2007:1605+410 = 2015
2008, (to ~Aug10):1389+255 = 1644
cit <- c("1998" = 4, "1999" = 15, "2000" = 17, "2001" = 39, "2002" =
119,
"2003" = 276, "2004" = 523,"2005" = 945,"2006" = 1475, "2007" =
2015,
"2008"=1644)
These will not be all that accurate; there will be omissions
and duplications.
Growth is close to exponential.
John Maindonald email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
On 09/10/2008, at 9:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Peter Dalgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 9 October 2008 5:42:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: "r-help@R-project.org" <r-help@r-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [R] R seven years ago
>
>
> (Ted Harding) wrote:
>> On 08-Oct-08 18:00:27, Liviu Andronic wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> As some may know, today Google unveiled its 2001 search index [1]. I
>>> was curious to see how was R like at that time, and was not
>>> disappointed. Compared to today's main page [2], seven years ago the
>>> page looked [3] a bit rudimentary, especially the graphic. (It is
>>> wort
>>> noting that structurally the pages are very similar.) What
>>> definitely
>>> changed is the `Contributed packages' section. Then R featured 29
>>> contributed packages [4], while now it features 1500+ [5]. It was
>>> surprising to realize the growth of R during the past seven years.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Liviu
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.google.com/search2001.html
>>> [2] http://www.r-project.org/
>>> [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20010722202756/www.r-project.org/
>>> [4]
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20010525004023/cran.r-project.org/bin/macos/c
>>> ontrib/src/
>>> [5] http://cran.at.r-project.org/web/packages/
>>>
>>
>> Many thanks for this, Liviu! One might also compare the mailing list
>> usage:
>>
>> [R-help 1997]: 484 messages
>> [R-help 2001]: 4309 messages
>> [R-help 2007]: 26250
>> 1721+1909+2196+2145+2210+2309+
>> 2142+2246+2028+2711+2602+2031
>>
>> So we now get more posts in a week than we did in the whole of 1997!
>>
>>
> Those not present at the useR in Dortmund might want to skim John
> Fox's talk
>
> http://www.statistik.uni-dortmund.de/useR-2008/slides/Fox.pdf
>
> (Actually, he did something at the end to avoid ending on a negative
> note. Flipped back to one of the increasing graphs, I suppose.)
>
> --
> O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
> c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
> (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45)
> 35327918
> ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45)
> 35327907
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@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.
