Date:         Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:38:57 -0400
Reply-To:     mark.k.moran@CENSUS.GOV
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         mark.k.moran@CENSUS.GOV
Subject:      Re: was "running SAS": is "shame on SAS"
Comments: To: Peter Crawford <peter.crawford@DB.COM>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> $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