|Date: ||Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:04:18 +0000|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>|
|Subject: ||Re: Lag function|
No, logically irrational. I think most of the problems with the
SAS language come from lack of communication between developers in
different parts of the system and the failure of documenters to explain
the significance of features.
Perhaps, it was easy to implement LAG as value from last observation
because of the simplicity of the way SPSS reads data. Personally, I
much prefer a general tool, and having many ways of bringing data into
the DATA step. Perhaps it is my background in mathematics showing, but I
have always preferred general use tools to tools for specific problems.
I never found it difficult to understand that LAG returned the last value
put in, and the consequence that you could not obtain the value from the
last record when you didn't put a value from the last record in. Since LAG
has been around for at least 25 years and probably much more, I would like
to see someone give an accurate verifiable history of the introduction of
SPSS LAG and SAS LAG into their respective systems.
I haven't looked at the SPSS recode procedure in many years. Perhaps
you could explain its superiority in a way that would not be trivial to
implement in SAS.
How does REORDER differ from PROC SORT? Is it a feature of having all
data present in memory at once?
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:13:37 -0400
Reply-To: Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion"
From: Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>
Subject: Re: Lag function
Comments: To: sas-l
Whether they were na´ve or not aside, SPSS did come up with at least three
commands that I only wish SAS would eventually duplicate: lag, recode and
reorder. Yes, SAS does have alternative means for solving the same
problems, ways which provide even more versatility and control, but not
ways that seem logically intuitve.
Does that mean that SAS is illogically irrational?