Date:         Tue, 23 May 2000 16:04:05 -0400
Reply-To:     Ray Pass <raypass@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Ray Pass <raypass@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:      PROC TABULATE, and most other PROCs
In-Reply-To:  <852568E8.00678EBA.00@amhqmxln01.astramerck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Here we go again :-)  Maybe we can nip this one in the bud.

Why do we often get into these shooting matches about, "My PROC's better
than your PROC!"  Personally, I am a BIG fan and user of PROC TABULATE,
especially with it's new tie-in to STYLES and ODS, but I do not try to
proselytize about it, or about REPORT or ODS or any other PROC or method
that I use.  I do try to tell others about them and suggest that they might
be quite useful, but I am a firm believer in using whatever gets the job done.

Innovation and modification and new technologies have their places for
sure, and I am a major fan of using the latest and the greatest, but
there's also a lot to be said for comfort and familiarity levels, as long
as the end product is not seriously lacking because of a firm resistance to
effective and productive change.

We see these arguments on both sides.  "You really should be using this new
tool."   "That new tool is probably dangerously buggy and I recommend the
old tried and true."   Personally, I think that when taken to extremes,
both of these types of arguments are counter-productive.  I am not accusing
anyone of anything right now, but I guess I am asking for a more
enlightened atmosphere of tolerance and education as opposed to
competitiveness and narrow-mindedness.

I think that both messages below do adhere in spirit to a notion of, "This
works for me", and both do state that these are subjective statements, but
I can see them as possible launching points for another battle, which we
don't need.  Thanks for listening.

Ray



At 02:48 PM 5/23/00 -0400, Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM wrote:
>In my humble opinion, the tabulate procedure has its place in the language/SAS
>system.
>I too have worked with several clients in the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
>Information Industries.
>And I have found the tabulate procedure to be of better use to create some of
>the statistical tables.
>It has proven very useful for me in my creation of 2 way and 3 way tabular
>crossings.
>And I like the ALL option, its great for the totals.  Also with V8 we can get
>the median stat
>without using the univariate procedure, to me this is a good enhancement.
>
>  I do not find it cumbersome, limited and it's output is very attractive.  I
>have had a number of my
>tabulate created text tables published within Study reports/NDA documents.
>
>Kind regards,
>Anne
>http://geocities.com/rainbow_softwr
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>To:   SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>cc:
>From: John Iwaniszek <jiwaniszek@NC.RR.COM>
>Date: 05/23/2000 05:52 PM GMT
>Subject:  Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine
>
>Message
>___________________________________________________________________________
>_____
>
>
>
>
>Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way.  I meant (partly as a gibe) to
>include proc tabulate in my list of representative trivia because I have
>seen very little proc tabulate generated tables in my 10 years of
>generating tables and listings.  I can not remember the last I use proc
>tabulate, yet I entabulate data daily for some of the biggest CROs and
>Pharamceutical comnpanies in the world. Proc tabulate is cumbersome,
>limited, and inadequate to many of the tasks we perform. Plus, its
>output is no way near as attractive as what I can do with our home grown
>SAS macros.
>
>I am sure that the intelligent reader will recognize that many of what I
>ave expressed is opinion subject to one's individual perspective.
>However, my satisfied clients will agree and it is they who count.
>
>As for the certification exam, the inclusion of many proc tabulate
>questions does not enhance the exam's credibility.
>
>John
>
>"Lund, Pete" wrote:
> >
> > I also took the Tekmetrics "test" (it was free!) and had the same initial
> > reaction.  If I remember right there were about 40 questions and I would
> > hope that they are drawn from a larger pool of questions.  I was surprised
> > at the relatively large number of questions that were related to PROC
> > TABULATE - probably 10-15%.  No offense Lauren, but PROC TABULATE does not
> > make up 15% of my coding day.  I agree with Anne that TABULATE is not an
> > obscure procedure, but it does not warrant the proportionally largest share
> > of a SAS test.
> >
> > I made it through as a "Master SAS Programmer" but I would put less
> stock in
> > that than the piece of paper they never sent me!  When I've been
> involved in
> > conducting technical interviews we've always had people provide code
> samples
> > (though I guess they could be forged) and asked the applicant to do a data
> > flow diagram of a simple (with a twist) little problem.  Those two things
> > often guided an interview much more than the score on a multiple choice
> test
> > ever would.
> >
> > Pete Lund
> > WA State Caseload Forecast Council
> > (360) 902-0086     voice
> > (360) 902-0084     fax
> > peter.lund@cfc.wa.gov
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM
> > [mailto:Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 8:46 AM
> > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine
> >
> > Hi SAS-lers,
> >     Ah yes, I have heard of this test website, aka TekMetrics, from Charles
> > Patridge.  So the test is trivial,
> > in your opinion, while asking about obscure fxs and formats and even proc
> > tabulate.  What is wrong with
> > asking about proc tabulate, which in my opinion, is not an obscure
> > procedure.
> >
> > By the way, check out www.reviewnet.net for a better online SAS test. It
> > will
> > cost you though.
> > I was one of the outline designers and writers of this SAS online test.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Anne
> > http://geocities.com/rainbow_softwr
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To:   SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > cc:
> > From: "David L. Cassell" <Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
> > Date: 05/22/2000 06:27 PM GMT
> > Subject:  Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine
> >
> > Message
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> > ____
> >
> > John wrote [in part]:
> >
> > > I took the Brain Bench certification test and found it to measure
> > > primarily trivia (obscure functions and formats, proc tabulate).  I do
> > > not believe that it would serve as a good measure of SAS skill or even
> > > an efficient screen for potential candidates
> >
> > I agree wholeheartedly with you about Brain Bench [aka TekMetrics].
> > I have complained about their testing in this very mailing list.
> > But that is *not* the same thing as the certification which SAS is
> > pushing.
> >
> > That will measure your knowledge of a *different* set of trivia.
> > :-)
> >
> > David, who hopes people spot that smiley...
> > --
> > David Cassell, OAO                     cassell@mail.cor.epa.gov
> > Senior computing specialist
> > mathematical statistician
>
>--
>John Iwaniszek
>
>Statistical Programming Manager
>Stat-Tech Services, LLC
>
>919 571 6444
>
>Developers of the Macro Reporting System - Delivering
>Statistical reports in ASCII, RTF, and HTML
>
>http://www.StatTechServices.com

*------------------------------------------------*
| Ray Pass                voice: (914) 693-5553  |
| Ray Pass Consulting      eFax: (914) 206-3780  |
| 5 Sinclair Place                               |
| Hartsdale, NY 10530    e-mail: raypass@att.net |
*------------------------------------------------*