On 3/20/2014 9:00 AM, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. wrote:
On 03/20/2014 07:48 AM, Michael Weylandt wrote:
On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:19, "Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D."
<thern...@mayo.edu> wrote:
There is a central assertion to this argument that I don't follow:
At the end of the day most published results obtained with R just
won't be reproducible.
This is a very strong assertion. What is the evidence for it?
If I've understood Jeroen correctly, his point might be alternatively
phrased as "won't be reproducED" (i.e., end user difficulties, not
software availability).
Michael
That was my point as well. Of the 30+ Sweave documents that I've
produced I can't think of one that will change its output with a new
version of R. My 0/30 estimate is at odds with the "nearly all"
assertion. Perhaps I only do dull things?
Terry T.
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
The only concrete example that comes to mind from my own Sweave reports
was actually caused by BioConductor and not CRAN. I had a set of
analyses that used DNAcopy, and the results changed substantially with a
new release of the package in which they changed the default values to
the main function call. As a result, I've taken to writing out more of
the defaults that I previously just accepted. There have been a few
minor issues similar to this one (with changes to parts of the Mclust
package ??). So my estimates are somewhat higher than 0/30 but are still
a long way from "almost all".
Kevin
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
