Date:         Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:15:40 -0400
Reply-To:     Don Hendereson <donaldjhenderson@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Don Hendereson <donaldjhenderson@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Is batch SAS a dead end? (was Re: SCL versus Macro)
In-Reply-To:  <200504231940.j3NJebV0023013@listserv.cc.uga.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Chang,

Thanks for the birdie comment - which I mostly wholeheartedly agree with.
Stored processes are a good thing. But the point also needs to be made that
a Stored Process is just a SAS program - which is integrated with metadata
and is thus more broadly available. And that SAS program can contain calls
to macro, scl code, open code, etc. So no one (and this means you Joe :-),
should think that Stored Processes are replacements for (or better than)
macros, scl, programs, etc.

-don

-----Original Message-----
From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Chang
Chung
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 3:41 PM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Is batch SAS a dead end? (was Re: SCL versus Macro)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:03:35 -0400, Chang Chung
<chang_y_chung@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:59:15 +0000, Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>
wrote:
..
>>I suspect, but have not heard other than in terms of silence,
>>that SI believes batch SAS programming to be a dead end for
>>profits.  Perhaps someone should propose such a discussion under
>>a different subject, say "Is batch SAS a dead end?".
>
>Hi,
>
>I would say it is not only not dead but rather rejuvenated!!
>
>A SAS server does get a "batch" job, run it, and return the output to the
>client, more or less sequentially. OK, the end-user may not know that they
>"submit" a batch job, but that is what EG or the office add-in do. The
>output may not be a stack of the 132 column line-printer outputs, but you
>get your ODS output only after your batch job is done running (this may
>change once they start stream out the ods outputs).
>
>As the more and more sas programmers start to write the stored processes,
>the understanding of how *this* batch process works will become more and
>more important. Either that or I just don't understand what "batch" SAS
>means... :-)

Hi,

I've got a birdie's opinion on this matter:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
the advantages of stored processes are that they are catloged in metadata
so other people can find and use them (contrast this with macros that are
often "hidden by obscurity", not well shared across the enterprise (or
organisation if one is not an enterprise)

and that the output can be incorporated in many places that SAS output
never showed up before.  excel.  web services.  etc...

i wish more people could see that a stored process is

a) a new name for an old thing
b) a good way to leverage that old thing by making a lot more broadly
consumable
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers,
Chang