From greg at warnes.net  Thu Jan 22 18:23:12 2015
From: greg at warnes.net (Gregory R. Warnes)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:23:12 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
In-Reply-To: <CAJ9CoWmTp_0UmL6UQ+iGBjbm-QXWxEyVsYWjhTWBj3YOXv3kKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ9CoWmTp_0UmL6UQ+iGBjbm-QXWxEyVsYWjhTWBj3YOXv3kKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42A162C6-9712-4EA4-BB94-C7D18180BE0C@warnes.net>

I second the motion for a Programming Tools CRAN Task View.

I would also think it could contain things like Rcpp, R6, etc. 

-Greg


> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Max Kuhn <mxkuhn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've had a lot of requests for additions to the reproducible research
> task view that fall into a grey area (to me at least).
> 
> For example, roxygen2 is a tool that broadly enable reproducibility
> but I see it more as a tool for better programming. I'm about to check
> in a new version of the task view that includes packrat and
> checkpoint, as they seem closer to reproducible research, but also
> feel like coding tools.
> 
> There are a few other packages that many would find useful for better
> coding: devtools, testthat, lintr, codetools, svTools, rbenchmark,
> pkgutils, etc.
> 
> This might be some overlap with the HPC task view. I would think that
> rJava, Rcpp and the like are better suited there but this is arguable.
> 
> The last time I proposed something like this, Martin deftly convinced
> me to be the maintainer. It is probably better for everyone if we
> avoid that on this occasion.
> 
> * Does anyone else see the need for this?
> 
> * What other packages fit into this bin?
> 
> * Would anyone like to volunteer?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Max
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Gregory R. Warnes