thank you, typo corrected.

]]>Thank you Martin for the comments (and for the involvement with R). I agree with the (surprising?) lack of professionalism of Springer-Verlag (or of their referee[s]). I do not think, however, that this reflects poorly on R. (No more than a poor book on Bayesian Statistics [no name!] reflects poorly on BUGS.) The way the authors use R is not arguable per se, it is rather in the transition from the R output to the probabilistic interpretation that they fail for lack of a proper background. On the opposite, I find the whole thing interesting in that, thanks to the availability of R, people with little prior training can experiment with probability concepts and statistical methods. Obviously, this is up to some limit, where theory becomes a necessary step! In Dauphine, we start the statistics courses with an R class and the students react rather well to this experimental introduction, in that they can later check more theoretical notions against their computational intuitions…

]]>The fact that “using R” sells is backslashing now, very sadly.

So, we see victims of R’s success, besides all the beautiful power it has brought us — says one of the founding members of the R Core team: