Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:24:38 -0500
Reply-To: Ian Whitlock <WHITLOI1@WESTAT.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Ian Whitlock <WHITLOI1@WESTAT.COM>
Subject: Re: SQLheads (was RE: new "clashvars" macro)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
In part Dianne Rhodes wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>If it helps, look at history. The first programming
>engineers felt like
>they lost control when they could no longer flip the switches
>setting the
>program. The 0/1 programmers felt like they lost control
>with the simple
>mnemonics of assembly language. The assembly programmers
>fought losing
>control to the Fortran and COBOL compilers.
Ah yes, one of my biggest challenges was trying to teach SAS to a
COBOL programmer who was an assembly programmer diehard.
I was trying to explain the syntax for a pretty simple do instruction, and
he kept asking me "How does it know when to stop?"
It took me a while to understand that he meant how does the compiler
know when to stop parsing the command.
He was never comfortable with the DATA step because he wanted
more control over the program I/O.
(Too bad Russ Lavery had yet to put his SAS-the-movie into motion!
I could have used that!)
> The C programmer
>fights losing
>control to the SAS compiler. Now you fight losing control to an SQL
>compiler that will decide the method of solution. You belong to an
>illustrious line of losers,
Ah geez, thanks a bunch Ian. Now we're losers. And I thought it was
evolution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No Dianne, it is evolution. But like evolution the ones that cannot change
and do not find a nitch (some of all of the above are in succesful places)
are losers.
Now tell me about the ones who want a translator from SAS to their nitch.
Now that I think about it, my nitch is getting a little cramped too.
IanWhitlock@westat.com
