Date:         Mon, 9 May 2005 18:26:17 -0700
Reply-To:     Jack Hamilton <jfh@STANFORDALUMNI.ORG>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Jack Hamilton <jfh@STANFORDALUMNI.ORG>
Subject:      Re: SQL, reduced normal form and dummy variables
In-Reply-To:  <OFF9BA6262.502E6D84-ON88256FFC.007CC456-88256FFC.007D9461@epamail.epa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

David L. Cassell wrote:

> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 3:52 pm
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SAS-L] SQL, reduced normal form and dummy variables
>
> David Wright <David_wright@SPRA.COM> wrote:
> > I have always been interested in SQL since it can do more
> than regular
> SAS.
>
> I don't actually agree with that.  SQL is more useful than a DATA
> step some of the time.  A DATA step is more useful than SQL some of
> the time.  Each can be manipulated to do almost everything the
> other can (although you may have to tie yourself into a pretzel
> to do it).

I think your term "useful" is more, uh, useful than the original poster's
implied "powerful" (=can do more).

I would claim the opposite, that the rest of SAS combined is more powerful
than SQL.  I will claim, but am not willing to try to prove, that anything
that can be done by PROC SQL can be done by a combination of the data step,
the macro language, and procedures, but that the opposite is not true: there
are things which can be done with with the data step, etc., which can not be
done by PROC SQL alone.

If I had to do without one or the other, I would do without SQL, but I agree
that it's a very powerful addition and makes some tasks much easier.