WPML
WPML made machine translation the default, and its point releases keep chasing WordPress and page builders.
Comparison · Infra & APIs
projoint vs webfakes
A side-by-side editorial comparison of projoint and webfakes — release velocity, themes, recent moves, and the top alternatives to consider.
Shared themes:r-package
projoint vs webfakes: at a glance
What is projoint?
projoint spent a year on CRAN paperwork, then shipped a correctness fix it flagged itself.
projoint is an R package for analysing conjoint survey experiments, covering Qualtrics import, reshaping, and quantity-of-interest estimation with inter-rater reliability correction. Most of its release history is CRAN admission work — citation formats, DESCRIPTION fields, \value{} tags, vignette cleanups — with four tags backfilled within ninety seconds of each other on 15 July in non-monotonic version order, so neither tag order nor timestamps in this feed track the real sequence. The substantive releases are the ones fixing data-preparation bugs that silently corrupt estimates.
What is webfakes?
A fake web server for tests that keeps closing the gap with the real thing.
webfakes runs a real HTTP server inside R tests so packages can exercise network code without hitting the internet. Its releases follow a consistent logic: find a class of behaviour that only the real internet could reproduce, then implement it locally. HTTPS arrived in 1.4.0; before that the httpbin clone reached full parity with the Python original, and a fake git HTTP server landed alongside CGI middleware. The most recent release, 1.5.0, is about the server's own rough edges — keep-alive timeouts, locale-independent HTTP date parsing, and trailing-slash route matching.
projoint vs webfakes: editorial side-by-side
projoint
2.5INFRA · APIS
projoint spent a year on CRAN paperwork, then shipped a correctness fix it flagged itself.
◆ Current state
projoint is an R package for analysing conjoint survey experiments, covering Qualtrics import, reshaping, and quantity-of-interest estimation with inter-rater reliability correction. Most of its release history is CRAN admission work — citation formats, DESCRIPTION fields, \value{} tags, vignette cleanups — with four tags backfilled within ninety seconds of each other on 15 July in non-monotonic version order, so neither tag order nor timestamps in this feed track the real sequence. The substantive releases are the ones fixing data-preparation bugs that silently corrupt estimates.
◆ Where it's heading
The maintainer is hardening the path from raw Qualtrics export to estimate, which is where conjoint analysis quietly goes wrong. Three separate releases fix that path: dropped respondent-level weights in organize_data(), repeated-task reshaping in reshape_projoint(), and choice-to-profile mapping in 1.1.3. Each fix now arrives with regression tests and stricter validation rather than just a patch, and 1.1.3 adds an explicit .choice_map so the mapping is auditable instead of inferred.
◆ Prediction
Expect the validation-and-regression-test pattern to keep extending across the import path, with releases continuing to arrive in bursts around CRAN submission rather than on a cadence.
webfakes
0.0INFRA · APIS
A fake web server for tests that keeps closing the gap with the real thing.
◆ Current state
webfakes runs a real HTTP server inside R tests so packages can exercise network code without hitting the internet. Its releases follow a consistent logic: find a class of behaviour that only the real internet could reproduce, then implement it locally. HTTPS arrived in 1.4.0; before that the httpbin clone reached full parity with the Python original, and a fake git HTTP server landed alongside CGI middleware. The most recent release, 1.5.0, is about the server's own rough edges — keep-alive timeouts, locale-independent HTTP date parsing, and trailing-slash route matching.
◆ Where it's heading
The package is converging on being indistinguishable from a real server for test purposes, which is the only way it stays useful — every unsupported protocol feature is a piece of code someone cannot test offline. The remaining work has visibly shifted from missing endpoints to correctness details: date header parsing under unusual locales, keep-alive tuning, request body handling across content types.
◆ Prediction
Expect continued fidelity work against real-server behaviour rather than new app types, with HTTP/2 or authentication schemes the most plausible next gaps given the direction HTTPS opened. The entries do not indicate a specific planned feature.
Alternatives to projoint and webfakes
Other Infra & APIs products tracked by Sparkpulse, ranked by recent ship velocity. Each card links to a full editorial trajectory and lets you pivot into a head-to-head comparison with either projoint or webfakes.
forestploter
A forest plot package that keeps handing users control of one more graphical detail.
ggInterval
Interval-valued data plotting, spending 2026 making its function names and examples survive CRAN.
rgm
A microbiome network model that got itself un-archived by deleting the dependency that killed it.
contagionchannels
Three releases in ten days, every one of them a CRAN reviewer's correction rather than a code change.
tidyaudit
Pipeline provenance for tidyverse workflows, recording what changed at each step without keeping the data.
See all projoint alternatives → · See all webfakes alternatives →
Recent activity from projoint and webfakes
Latest ship moves from both products, interleaved chronologically. ⚡ = editorial spark.
- 17d agoprojointExplicit .choice_map guards choice-to-profile mapping
- 1mo agoprojointCRAN submission housekeeping for DESCRIPTION and examples
- 1mo agoprojointCRAN formatting pass; minor make_projoint_data() fix
- 1mo agoprojointreshape_projoint() repeated-task bug fixed; validation tightened
- 1mo agoprojointCitation metadata updated with the CRAN DOI
- 3mo agowebfakesKeep-alive tuning, locale-safe HTTP dates, looser routes
- 5mo agoprojointorganize_data() no longer drops respondent-level weights
- 1y agowebfakesHTTPS support lands in the fake server ⚡
- 1y agowebfakesNew decode_url server option
- 2y agowebfakesAdds a fake git HTTP server and CGI middleware
- 2y agowebfakesFixes tmpl_glue() on affected macOS builds
- 3y agowebfakeshttpbin clone reaches parity with the Python original
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between projoint and webfakes?
Both compete on the same themes — r-package — within Infra & APIs. projoint is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. See the at-a-glance table above for a side-by-side breakdown of velocity, recent sparks, and editorial themes.
Is projoint better than webfakes?
Sparkpulse doesn't pick a winner — we score release velocity, not feature parity. projoint is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. For your specific use case, the alternatives sections above list other Infra & APIs products to evaluate alongside.
What are the best alternatives to projoint?
Top projoint alternatives in Infra & APIs are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "projoint alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/projoint for the full list with editorial commentary on each.
What are the best alternatives to webfakes?
Top webfakes alternatives in Infra & APIs are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "webfakes alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/webfakes for the full list with editorial commentary on each.