Re: [R] Ashlee Vance's article on R in the New York Times

2009-01-10 Thread Stavros Macrakis
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Robert Wilkins wrote: > ...The user interface for R, otherwise known as the S programming language > has the same origins as C and Unix We could take this one step further, and note that C's design (its "user interface"?) was based on BCPL, which was developed

Re: [R] Ashlee Vance's article on R in the New York Times

2009-01-09 Thread hadley wickham
> comparable to S-Plus and SAS, not withstanding Milley's snide comment. But > if you want to attack the chronic and painful productivity problems with > data preparation and statistical table production, you need to go beyond R > and SAS. What are these problems? Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ _

Re: [R] Ashlee Vance's article on R in the New York Times

2009-01-09 Thread Patrick Connolly
On Thu, 08-Jan-2009 at 01:26AM -0500, Robert Wilkins wrote: [] |> Some R promoters point out that R has lexical scope and lots of |> Scheme goodness. ( and what widespread programming language today |> does not have lexical scope? ). But other R promoters point out |> that programs in S-Plus

[R] Ashlee Vance's article on R in the New York Times

2009-01-07 Thread Robert Wilkins
Ashlee Vance's article on R in the New York Times. This is typical of the New York Times. Because they get to coast on the prestige and reputation of their brand , they have a history of just this sort of journalistic sloppiness. Whether it's the author or the editor at fault doesn't really matter