Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:47:43 GMT
Reply-To:     Jack N Shoemaker <shoe@WORLD.STD.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Jack N Shoemaker <shoe@WORLD.STD.COM>
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
Subject:      Re: Open letter to SAS Inst.: We want a REAL user interface!
In-Reply-To:  Eric Ellsworth's message of Thu, 06 Feb 1997 11:18:34 -0500

In article <32FA045A.7B8B@mhg.edu> Eric Ellsworth <exe1@mhg.edu> writes:
 
Unfortunately this utter lack of understanding that people do not WANT
to learn poorly structured, arcane languages such as SAS is not
limited to the SAS institute. In the high-energy physics world, the
analog of SAS is called PAW, and it too is filled with commands whose
names and structure don't make any sense.  Unfortunately, enough
people struggle along with it to keep it alive.  Until people demand
sensible programming from SAS, they will continue to pump out the same
incomprehensible garbage they always have.  So don't hold your breath
for a well-written version of SAS.
 
Eric, what's your beef?  SAS provides all the elements of a
full-featured procedural language inside the data step.  And, its OOP
model is one of the best and most consistent models around.  What is
an example of "incomprehensible garbage"?  No, you can't compile the
source, per se.  Also, some of the chart-junk and clutter that you
find available with something like VB is missing.  Amen, I say!  If
you are working with data and value content over doo-dads, you'd be
hard pressed to find a better solution than SAS.  Cheaper, for sure,
but not better.  I'd really like to know what specifically you find so
objectionable.  - Jack
 
--
Jack N Shoemaker   shoe@world.std.com