Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-18 Thread David Henderson
Tests and examples are different things. The fact that your example runs only means that your code does not bomb on execution and not that it runs correctly. Plus, the code in examples is meant as an aid to the user; a way to help them understand how to use your code. Proper tests are there

Re: [Rd] R vs. C now rather: how to ease package checking

2011-01-18 Thread Spencer Graves
On 1/18/2011 8:44 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Claudia Beleiteswrote: On 01/18/2011 01:13 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Spencer Graves< spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote: Hi, Dominick, et al.: Demanding co

Re: [Rd] R vs. C now rather: how to ease package checking

2011-01-18 Thread Dominick Samperi
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Claudia Beleites wrote: > On 01/18/2011 01:13 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Spencer Graves< >> spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Dominick, et al.: >>> >>> >>> Demanding complete unit test suites with

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-18 Thread Patrick Burns
.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me, a major strength of R is the package development process. I've found this

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-18 Thread Claudia Beleites
ailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me, a major strength of R is the package development process. I've found this

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-18 Thread Patrick Burns
rom: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me, a major strength of R is the package development p

Re: [Rd] R vs. C now rather: how to ease package checking

2011-01-18 Thread Claudia Beleites
ry? Paul -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me,

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Dominick Samperi
ocess does to help insure >> consistent documentation and >> organization, and about how this nudging might be extended to the C/C++ >> part >> of a package. >> >> Dominick >> >> >> Spencer >>> >>> >>> >

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Spencer Graves
n...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me, a major strength of R is the package development process. I've found this so valuable

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Dominick Samperi
> -Original Message- >> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] >> On Behalf Of Spencer Graves >> Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM >> To: Dominick Samperi >> Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel >&

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Spencer Graves
ests/ directory? Paul -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM To: Dominick Samperi Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Paul Gilbert
: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C For me, a major strength of R is the package development process. I've found this so valuable that I created a Wikipedia entry by that name and made additions to a Wikipedia entry on "software

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Dominick Samperi
heir >> list of priorities. >> >> The bottom like is that R is an adaptor ("glue") language like Lisp that >> makes it easy to mix and >> match functions (using classes and generic functions), many of which are >> written in C (or C++ >> or Fortr

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Spencer Graves
lations you will have to do the C/C++ programming yourself (or call a library that somebody else has written). Dominick - Original Message From: Dirk Eddelbuettel To: Patrick Leyshock Cc: r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C On 17 Janu

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Dominick Samperi
C/C++ programming yourself (or call a library that somebody else has written). Dominick > >> >> - Original Message >> From: Dirk Eddelbuettel >> To: Patrick Leyshock >> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org >> Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM >

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Barry Rowlingson
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, David Henderson wrote: > I think we're also forgetting something, namely testing.  If you write your > routine in C, you have placed additional burden upon yourself to test your C > code through unit tests, etc.  If you write your code in R, you still need the > un

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Spencer Graves
secondarily, coders... Dave H - Original Message From: Dirk Eddelbuettel To: Patrick Leyshock Cc: r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Leyshock wrote: | A question, please about development of R packages

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread David Henderson
I am working with scientists who are not primarily, or even secondarily, coders... Dave H - Original Message From: Dirk Eddelbuettel To: Patrick Leyshock Cc: r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Ley

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Leyshock wrote: | A question, please about development of R packages: | | Are there any guidelines or best practices for deciding when and why to | implement an operation in R, vs. implementing it in C? The "Writing R | Extensions" recommends "working in inte

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 17/01/2011 12:41 PM, Patrick Burns wrote: Everyone has their own utility function. Mine is if the boredom of waiting for the pure R function to finish is going to out-weight the boredom of writing the C code. Another issue is that adding C code increases the hassle of users who might want th

Re: [Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Patrick Burns
Everyone has their own utility function. Mine is if the boredom of waiting for the pure R function to finish is going to out-weight the boredom of writing the C code. Another issue is that adding C code increases the hassle of users who might want the code to run on different architectures. On

[Rd] R vs. C

2011-01-17 Thread Patrick Leyshock
A question, please about development of R packages: Are there any guidelines or best practices for deciding when and why to implement an operation in R, vs. implementing it in C? The "Writing R Extensions" recommends "working in interpreted R code . . . this is normally the best option." But we