Board index SAS statistics package

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by mark.k.mo.. » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:32:15



Quote:> Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
and
> Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

Quote:> Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very

little in SAS.

Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
mundane chores in SAS.

Quote:> Ron
> **********************************************************
> Ronald Smith
> Research Evaluation Coordinator
> Institutional Research
> Portland Community College

Mark
 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by John Iwanisze » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:38:10



> > Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very
> little in SAS.

> Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
> up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
> much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
> one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
> totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
> supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
> mundane chores in SAS.

Because editor developers develop better editors? (repeat ten times
fast)

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Dorfman, Pa » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:51:30


Mark,

What you are saying may very well be true, but personally I find
editor-centric discussions a bit silly. It appears as if the editor is a
single most important element of programming, while in reality, the actural
typing of a program and editing it is the last and the least important stage
of programming work. Moreover, SAS programs rarely become exceedingly large.
For that matter, the choice of an editor might be of more importance to a
COBOL programmer (I have seen COBOL programs with upwards of 500,000 lines
of code) - and those are mostly written using ISPF.

I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
practicality. On PC, there are other useful features, but they are not
critical for getting the job done. On the Big Iron, almost nobody works with
dumb terminals directly any more, and PC interfaces (Extra, Rumba, etc.)
provide editing and/or cut-and-paste capabilities comparable to those of
Ultraedit. Moreover, one could use any PC editor he wants and then move the
code to the mainframe for execution. But given the average SAS program size,
I find it practical to work directly in ISPF. As far as the latter goes, and
without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I honestly
find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best programming
editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

Kind regards,
====================
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
====================

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:32 AM

Subject: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

> Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
and
> Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

Quote:> Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very

little in SAS.

Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
mundane chores in SAS.

Quote:> Ron
> **********************************************************
> Ronald Smith
> Research Evaluation Coordinator
> Institutional Research
> Portland Community College

Mark

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Abelson » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:18:14


The "best editor" is the one you feel most comfortable with.

Robert Abelson
Bureau of Labor Statistics

"Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than
people do is a swine."
- P.J.O'Rourke

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:52 AM

Subject: Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Mark,

What you are saying may very well be true, but personally I find
editor-centric discussions a bit silly. It appears as if the editor is a
single most important element of programming, while in reality, the actural
typing of a program and editing it is the last and the least important stage
of programming work. Moreover, SAS programs rarely become exceedingly large.
For that matter, the choice of an editor might be of more importance to a
COBOL programmer (I have seen COBOL programs with upwards of 500,000 lines
of code) - and those are mostly written using ISPF.

I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
practicality. On PC, there are other useful features, but they are not
critical for getting the job done. On the Big Iron, almost nobody works with
dumb terminals directly any more, and PC interfaces (Extra, Rumba, etc.)
provide editing and/or cut-and-paste capabilities comparable to those of
Ultraedit. Moreover, one could use any PC editor he wants and then move the
code to the mainframe for execution. But given the average SAS program size,
I find it practical to work directly in ISPF. As far as the latter goes, and
without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I honestly
find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best programming
editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

Kind regards,
====================
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
====================

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:32 AM

Subject: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

> Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
and
> Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

> Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very
little in SAS.

Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
mundane chores in SAS.

> Ron
> **********************************************************
> Ronald Smith
> Research Evaluation Coordinator
> Institutional Research
> Portland Community College

Mark

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the
views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by mark.k.mo.. » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:26:13


Gentlemen,

Hey, slow down, hold up, one excuse will suffice for SAS here.  Two excuses
are only redundant.  :)  What I'm hearing being called an "adequate" editor
could have been implemented with the state of the art 15 years ago.  Here
we are in another century, versions and versions later, and ... excuses are
still flying.  Don't get me wrong, SAS is still my *favorite* tool for
getting the job done.  But as the state of the art steadily advances with
or without SAS, growing numbers of us tend to get a bit impatient.

Mark


Quote:> Because editor developers develop better editors? (repeat ten times

fast)


Quote:> It appears as if the editor is a single most important element of
programming,
> while in reality, the actural typing of a program and editing it is the
last and
> the least important stage of programming work.
> I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
> practicality. On PC, there are other useful features, but they are not
> critical for getting the job done. On the Big Iron, almost nobody works
with
> dumb terminals directly any more, and PC interfaces (Extra, Rumba, etc.)
> provide editing and/or cut-and-paste capabilities comparable to those of
> Ultraedit. Moreover, one could use any PC editor he wants and then move
the
> code to the mainframe for execution. But given the average SAS program
size,
> I find it practical to work directly in ISPF. As far as the latter goes,
and
> without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I
honestly
> find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best
programming
> editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
> believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
> further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
> done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Rezek, Geor » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:51:16


While we're on the subject, could someone point me to a good reference for
features of SAS's editor?  I usually use Kedit, because I find its features
convenient, and submit the jobs in batch.  For developing graphics, I do use
SAS's editor and wish I knew of a good manual (I noticed that they
discontinued the manual for SAS's version 6 editor).  TIA

George Rezek

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:18 AM

Subject: Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

The "best editor" is the one you feel most comfortable with.

Robert Abelson
Bureau of Labor Statistics

"Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than
people do is a swine."
- P.J.O'Rourke

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:52 AM

Subject: Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Mark,

What you are saying may very well be true, but personally I find
editor-centric discussions a bit silly. It appears as if the editor is a
single most important element of programming, while in reality, the actural
typing of a program and editing it is the last and the least important stage
of programming work. Moreover, SAS programs rarely become exceedingly large.
For that matter, the choice of an editor might be of more importance to a
COBOL programmer (I have seen COBOL programs with upwards of 500,000 lines
of code) - and those are mostly written using ISPF.

I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
practicality. On PC, there are other useful features, but they are not
critical for getting the job done. On the Big Iron, almost nobody works with
dumb terminals directly any more, and PC interfaces (Extra, Rumba, etc.)
provide editing and/or cut-and-paste capabilities comparable to those of
Ultraedit. Moreover, one could use any PC editor he wants and then move the
code to the mainframe for execution. But given the average SAS program size,
I find it practical to work directly in ISPF. As far as the latter goes, and
without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I honestly
find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best programming
editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

Kind regards,
====================
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
====================

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:32 AM

Subject: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

> Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
and
> Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

> Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very
little in SAS.

Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
mundane chores in SAS.

> Ron
> **********************************************************
> Ronald Smith
> Research Evaluation Coordinator
> Institutional Research
> Portland Community College

Mark

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the
views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by teed » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:10:42


As Paul noted, and I couldn't have said better

... As far as the latter goes, and
without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I honestly
find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best programming
editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, ....

Lionel

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Peter Crawfo » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:14:27


$0.02
 I think the discussion about personal preferences are lost on me !

May I offer a good reason to consider using sas interactively..
     try debugging a complex data step
     apart from the eye, nothing is better than the data step de*
        but that doesn't achieve it's objectives in batch ;-)

_Perhaps_ the justification for interactive "production" occurs
when some user interface and/or user interaction is needed.

As an interested party in the interactive services provided by sas display manager
  ( I'm interested because it is my platform of choice for developing sas code and applications ),
it seems a little worrying how sas institute seems to have a policy or strategy of developing new user interfaces outside of our sas system tools :-
   old friendly(?) tools
              ? prompt ( for die-hards ! )
              display manager (built with sas/af)

   new interfaces  (not built with sas/af )
              sas/internet
              sas/web
              enterprise guide
              jdms (like dms on java ! )

Consider also the apparent drift(?) away from sas/af

just the personal thoughts of
Peter Crawford

Datum:         13/06/2001 15:42


Betreff:       Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"
Nachrichtentext:

Gentlemen,

Hey, slow down, hold up, one excuse will suffice for SAS here.  Two excuses
are only redundant.  :)  What I'm hearing being called an "adequate" editor
could have been implemented with the state of the art 15 years ago.  Here
we are in another century, versions and versions later, and ... excuses are
still flying.  Don't get me wrong, SAS is still my *favorite* tool for
getting the job done.  But as the state of the art steadily advances with
or without SAS, growing numbers of us tend to get a bit impatient.

Mark


Quote:> Because editor developers develop better editors? (repeat ten times fast)


Quote:> It appears as if the editor is a single most important element of programming,
> while in reality, the actural typing of a program and editing it is the last and
> the least important stage of programming work.
> I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
> practicality. On PC, there are other useful features, but they are not
> critical for getting the job done. On the Big Iron, almost nobody works with
> dumb terminals directly any more, and PC interfaces (Extra, Rumba, etc.)
> provide editing and/or cut-and-paste capabilities comparable to those of
> Ultraedit. Moreover, one could use any PC editor he wants and then move the
> code to the mainframe for execution. But given the average SAS program size,
> I find it practical to work directly in ISPF. As far as the latter goes, and
> without a slightest intention to start another editor war here, I honestly
> find ISPF (and its PC SPF counterpart) to be absolutely the best programming
> editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
> believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
> further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
> done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

--

Diese E-Mail enth?lt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschtzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtmlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet.

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by wei che » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:39:37


Another thing that bothered me for a while (and seems will forever) is that
how can I batch print those well formated .lst output file generated by SAS
and keep the margin,etc. I'm using WIN/SAS. I have asked several SAS staffs
regarding to this during SUGI, they didn't have an answer. Finally, they
said if you need to print, you should use PDF format, that's what ODS for.
Or you should download the latest SAS Viewer 8.2.1. I downloaded it, and it
didn't work well.

Wei




>Subject: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"
>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:32:15 -0400

> > Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
>and
> > Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> > good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

>I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
>fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
>editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
>pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
>problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
>truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
>be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
>steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
>Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
>platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
>a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
>bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
>wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
>what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
>computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
>but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
>program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
>programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
>UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
>long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

> > Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very
>little in SAS.

>Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
>up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
>much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
>one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
>totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
>supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
>mundane chores in SAS.

> > Ron
> > **********************************************************
> > Ronald Smith
> > Research Evaluation Coordinator
> > Institutional Research
> > Portland Community College

>Mark

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by David L. Casse » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:06:56


Paul Dorfman wrote [in part]:

Quote:> What you are saying may very well be true, but personally I find
> editor-centric discussions a bit silly.

Hear, hear!  I couldn't agree more.  But...

Quote:> editor ever created. Again, it is my personal preference, and I do not
> believe that the choice of an editor is critical - the code is. It is
> further corroborated by the fact that a lot of good programming has been
> done using VI, the most maladroit editor I have seen.

Hey!  I like vi!  And I have seen significantly worse editors in
my time.  [disclaimer: in the vi FAQ, two of the "stupid vi tricks"
were submitted by yours truly]

Of course, I like Perl and Befunge, so don't take my opinion as that
of a sane person...

David
--
David Cassell, CSC

Senior computing specialist
mathematical statistician

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by mark.k.mo.. » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:38:57


Quote:> $0.02
>  I think the discussion about personal preferences are lost on me !

You may be referring to some other thread, in which case this posting
should not quote you at all, but the thread that I started had *zero* to do
with personal preferences about an editor.  The thread in my case was
exclusively about SAS itself, not any other alternatives to aspects of SAS
that might be available here and there.  Specifically, the question was not
personal preferences regarding the choice of editor, but only the equipment
that comes "standard" with base SAS.  Editors have evolved considerably
over the past dozen years.  SAS equips itself with editing capabilities
that are a dozen years behind the times.  I realize that SAS is not
supposed to offer leading-edge, competitive editing features, comparable to
word processors, say.  But for all the bucks it costs to operate SAS,
whether Editor A or Editor B tickles your fancy, the standard, default
suite of software within-SAS should not be markedly inferior to the $68.98
variety alternatives out there. If you're going to spend the money on a
brand-new Mercedes, would you be content if its GIS system were a 1989
compass, even if by 1989 standards the compass happened to be a rather good
one?  Even if the engine is far more critical to the performance of the
Mercedes, I find it a stretch to consider it silly to want the standard
equipment to reflect the state of the art to some minimal degree.

Mark

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Bob Burnha » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:19:56


  +----------------------------------------------------------------
  | It appears as if the editor is a single most important element
  | of programming, while in reality, the actural typing of a
  | program and editing it is the last and the least important stage
  | of programming work.
  +----------------------------------------------------------------

I think this depends a bit on the language, operating system,
and framework (if any) that you might be using.  For SAS, I
think it can be a big productivity boost for a programmer to
have an editor that helps with indentation and perhaps color
syntax highlighting.  The syntax highlighting is especially
useful as a first line of debugging -- helping you to pinpoint
misspelled keywords, unclosed quotes, etc.  Another important
function, IMHO, is the ability to run the contents of your
editor buffer through a shell process, e.g. sort, grep, etc.
This is especially important when you are using your editor to
not only manipulate code, but data (e.g. text files) as well.

For languages other than SAS, an editor can be a critical tool.
For example, the ability to match parens and indent code
automatically when using a Lisp-like language is imperative.  If
you are working with a large object-oriented system, then an
editor which auto-completes the object hierarchy (e.g. something
like VC++) is a big time saver and helps avoid a lot of errors.

  +----------------------------------------------------------------
  | I find the native SAS program editor absolutely adequate in all
  | practicality.
  +----------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely, me too. . .

Best regards,

Bob

--
Bob Burnham

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bburnham

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Eric Powel » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:06:19


I too am a UNIX user and avoid interactive as much as possible. It's
not just the editor, but the entire GUI interface that needs some
improvement. But based on answers to related questions at the SUGI26 Futures Forum,
we UNIX users should be grateful we have what interactive mode we have.
SAS's 1st response was shock that I had a UNIX box on my desktop, and their
second response was to put a PC on my desktop. If you haven't noticed,
all the new GUI tools (like Enterprise Guide) are PC only apps.

You can customize SAS in Version 7 or 8 to use your UNIX editor of choice,
but I have failed to get it to work consisitently. Search Online-Docs for
EDITCMD and HOSTEDIT under UNIX Environments (Companion).

Eric Powell


> > Another reason I don't use interactive oftenly is that I use Unix SAS,
> and
> > Unix SAS don't have a good editor, WIN/SAS enhanced editor is pretty
> > good stuff, but not in Unix SAS!

> I agree, and shame on SAS!  I once spoke with a fellow SAS user about the
> fact that SAS on UNIX and VMS was "user-unfriendly" especially in regard to
> editing compared to PC SAS.  His response to me was that you can't use a
> pickup truck to do the kind of work that requires an 18-wheeler.  The
> problem with this pat response is that the fundamentals of driving a pickup
> truck and the fundamentals of driving an 18-wheeler are not, and should not
> be, radically different.  A pickup truck and an 18-wheeler both have
> steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals, for example.
> Editing SAS code on PC and editing SAS code on many of these other
> platforms is so radically different that on one you have the equivalent of
> a steering wheel, on the other you have the equivalent of tricycle handle
> bars -- only its not the expensive "18 wheeler" that has the nice steering
> wheel as you would hope-- no, it's the *pickup truck* that offers the user
> what he might expect as the basics, given today's state of the art in
> computing.  I really find SAS useful and well-conceived in so many ways,
> but regarding basic editing, doing simple things like determining what
> program created a particular file without having to resort to comments in
> programs, or copying and pasting, the behavior of the interactive GUI in
> UNIX SAS, etc., I say shame on SAS!  It's so backward, and there's a long,
> long way to go in some of these areas.  Consider one more thing:

> > Use a different editor.  I do most of my win editing in K-edit, very
> little in SAS.

> Why on earth should users of SAS be expected to do that?  Why should we put
> up with having to go somewhere else than SAS itself, once in a blue moon
> much less on a routine basis, for something so basic as merely editing
> one's code?  In my humble but totally accurate opinion, I think it is
> totally bizarre that one should have to even consider using an editor not
> supplied with SAS/Base for dealing with the most ordinary, day-to-day,
> mundane chores in SAS.

> > Ron
> > **********************************************************
> > Ronald Smith
> > Research Evaluation Coordinator
> > Institutional Research
> > Portland Community College

> Mark

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Peter Crawfo » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:58:48


I agree with everything Mark says here

Does the relative weakness of the displaymanager editor reflect SI allocation of development time priorities to other areas ?

I should think they have enough developers to spare more for DM, unless thay want us to use some other development platform like EnterpriseGuide ?

2 more cents from
Peter Crawford
(................................. you get the value you pay for)

Datum:         13/06/2001 17:49


Betreff:       Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"
Nachrichtentext:

Quote:> $0.02
>  I think the discussion about personal preferences are lost on me !

You may be referring to some other thread, in which case this posting
should not quote you at all, but the thread that I started had *zero* to do
with personal preferences about an editor.  The thread in my case was
exclusively about SAS itself, not any other alternatives to aspects of SAS
that might be available here and there.  Specifically, the question was not
personal preferences regarding the choice of editor, but only the equipment
that comes "standard" with base SAS.  Editors have evolved considerably
over the past dozen years.  SAS equips itself with editing capabilities
that are a dozen years behind the times.  I realize that SAS is not
supposed to offer leading-edge, competitive editing features, comparable to
word processors, say.  But for all the bucks it costs to operate SAS,
whether Editor A or Editor B tickles your fancy, the standard, default
suite of software within-SAS should not be markedly inferior to the $68.98
variety alternatives out there. If you're going to spend the money on a
brand-new Mercedes, would you be content if its GIS system were a 1989
compass, even if by 1989 standards the compass happened to be a rather good
one?  Even if the engine is far more critical to the performance of the
Mercedes, I find it a stretch to consider it silly to want the standard
equipment to reflect the state of the art to some minimal degree.

Mark

--

Diese E-Mail enth?lt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschtzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtmlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet.

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

 
 
 
Top

was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"

Post by Dale McLerr » Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:43:47


Now that SAS operates under Linux, a lot of folks could have a 'NIX
machine on their desktop.  Perhaps there is hope for y'all out there
who don't get the latest developments just because you aren't using
a Macro$oft OS.  What are the latest figures on Linux usage vs M$
OS's?  Is there any belief (based in reality, not fantasy) that Linux
will get a strong enough presence to really concern M$?  My
understanding is that Linux still has a ways to go in GUI interface
to seriously concern the folks in Redmond.  But I sure would like to
see that happen.

Dale

>Date:         Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:06:19 -0500



>I too am a UNIX user and avoid interactive as much as possible. It's
>not just the editor, but the entire GUI interface that needs some
>improvement. But based on answers to related questions at the SUGI26 Futures Forum,
>we UNIX users should be grateful we have what interactive mode we have.
>SAS's 1st response was shock that I had a UNIX box on my desktop, and their
>second response was to put a PC on my desktop. If you haven't noticed,
>all the new GUI tools (like Enterprise Guide) are PC only apps.

>You can customize SAS in Version 7 or 8 to use your UNIX editor of choice,
>but I have failed to get it to work consisitently. Search Online-Docs for
>EDITCMD and HOSTEDIT under UNIX Environments (Companion).

>Eric Powell

---------------------------------------
Dale McLerran
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Ph:  (206) 667-2926
Fax: (206) 667-5977
---------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/

 
 
 
Top

1. !!!!!"""""IMPORTANTE"""""!!!!!

2. help on installing 1meg agnus ...

3. K7s5a """"ich krieg die KRIESE"""""

4. Modal windows

5. New keymaps: "uk" and "latin-am"

6. cisco 2514 router

7. Access "Description" imported to the SAS "Label" -- How?

8. How to use the bootloader

9. "Is list working?" / "not receiving sas-l digest" / etc.

10. I-Am I-AM "The Reverend Robert L. Bass "

11. To "MVP", "Sindar", or "Brett" :Problems with a menu

12. "paralell" port vs. "usb" vs. "serial"?

13. Abbreviate "hrs" to "h", "days" to "d"


All times are UTC
Board index