| To: | "Liaw, Andy" <andy_liaw@merck.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Concerns about SPLUS version 7 |
| From: | Patrick Burns <pburns@pburns.seanet.com> |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:35:12 +0100 |
| Cc: | 'Thomas Jagger' <tjagger@blarg.net>, s-news@lists.biostat.wustl.edu |
| In-reply-to: | <39B6DDB9048D0F4DAD42CB26AAFF0AFA64EA92@usctmx1106.Merck.com> |
| References: | <39B6DDB9048D0F4DAD42CB26AAFF0AFA64EA92@usctmx1106.Merck.com> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 StumbleUpon/1.995 (ax) |
Liaw, Andy wrote: I'll chip in my $0.02: ...4. BDR said in one of his talks a few years ago that R probably has more bugs than S-PLUS. However, bugs in R get fixed a lot quicker than in S-PLUS. Also, R is developed at a much faster pace than S-PLUS. That it may have more bugs is understandable. Things may have changed substantially in a few years. The relative number of bugs in each package is a difficult quantity to estimate, and it will depend on what your definition is of 'R' and 'S-PLUS'. However, my personal experience is categorically different: I've found S-PLUS (for Windows) to have a number of bugs, and R to have only an occasional minor bug. Patrick Burns Burns Statistics patrick@burns-stat.com +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User") |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Concerns about SPLUS version 7, roger bos |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Using Survival Analysis, Walter R. Paczkowski |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Concerns about SPLUS version 7, roger bos |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Concerns about SPLUS version 7, David Smith |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |