From: A.J. Rossini (rossini@blindglobe.net)
Date: Sat 21 Jun 2003 - 01:16:24 EST
Message-id: <8765n0n5iv.fsf@jeeves.blindglobe.net>
(Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> writes:
> My instincts say that "WIndows" is probably a significant
> factor in the comnparison, but still ...
>
> Ideally, to compare R with S-plus, one should look at them
> both on the same OS (Unix or Windows) on the same machine.
>
> Can anyone give me clean comparative speeds?
It's not that simple! Anecdotal evidence has constructed a few
scenarios where R will run, but S-PLUS won't, and a few where R will
barely run, but S-plus has very few problems (problem == slowness, in
this case).
It would be critical to be a subjective Bayesian about it, since
weighting of common applications, and perhaps more importantly,
quality of code for matching up with the difference, will have a large
impact.
best,
-tony
-- A.J. Rossini / rossini@u.washington.edu / rossini@scharp.org http://software.biostat.washington.edu/ UNTIL IT MOVES IN JULY. Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Washington Biostatistics, HVTN/SCHARP, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use EmailCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments ... {{dropped}}
______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue 01 Jul 2003 - 09:12:02 EST