|Date: ||Mon, 29 May 2006 01:09:24 -0400|
|Reply-To: ||Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>|
|Subject: ||Re: OT: Resposnse|
I just returned from a very brief vacation and was quite dismayed to see
how hurtful and personal the question of macro vs SCL has gone.
As such, already having seen the posts that followed Ian's response, and
contrary to my previous agreement to Howard's request not to overuse the
list's bandwidth on an OT topic, I felt impelled to add my two cents worth.
First, as a Psychologist, I have to add that whether Psychology is or ever
will be a science, and how long it takes anyone to get their degree (at
any level), is quite irrelevant to whether SAS macro language or scl (or
any part of SAS for that matter) is either antiquated, no longer needed,
or in need of replacement.
In case anyone wonders, I do think that Psychology is a science (albeit a
very young entry and an area that may or may not ever be considered
a 'hard' science), that what one knows and/or can do is much more
important to the scientific, pseudo-scientific, research and programming
communities than how long it took them to learn enough to get to their
current or future position, and that if any of us could have developed a
better, more saleable software than SAS, we should either have done so or
quickly get to it.
As most of you already know, I would not consider myself an expert in
either SAS macro language, or SCL, need both in my work, am not willing to
give up either, have been an on-again-off-again SAS user for more than 30
years (33 to be exact), and hold a PhD in the science or (if you will the
psedo-science) of Psychology (took me 7 years to get the degree, although
the last four of which I worked full time and raised a family).
From my own perspective SAS could definitely be improved to better meet my
needs, but I have yet to find an adequate replacement for it.
Does SAS cost too much?: yes!
Do I agree with all of the defaults that have been set for many of the SAS
Do I often question why it is sometimes so hard to get things to work in
SAS macros?: Yes!
Do I think SCL can replace SAS macros?: Not from what I have seen in the
past 30+ years!
Do I think I could do without SAS SCL?: No, unless something better comes
Do I think I could do without SAS macros?: No, unless something better
Do I think I could do without SAS? No! Been looking to replace it for a
long time, without success.
I only discovered this list about six years ago, but now find it essential
to my work and wonder how I existed so long without it. While I always
welcome debate on any topic, I don't welcome the change of one letter
from 'debate' to 'debase'.
Bottom line, I currently need SAS, continually have to learn more about
the program and how to use it, welcome (beyond what words can express) the
vast amount of knowledge and help that one always sees on SAS-L, and am
quite concerned about losing potentially valuable members (because of
debates like the present one) who, otherwise, might someday have added
something valuable to the rest of us.
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:37:52 +0000, Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>
>Your lead paragraph starts off
>Let me see if I can straighten you out a bit and help you get
>your head screwed on properly ...
>... but you should limit yourself to that [SAS programming] and
>not try to foist off story-book versions of Science to the
>unsuspecting. The real behavior of real scientist has almost
>nothing to do with your obviously lay person caricature. I'll
>say a bit more about that below.
>And then later, you do, with
>Having endured over ten years in two different doctoral programs
>in psychology, I think I know quite a bit about Science. Enough
>to conclude that psychology is not and cannot be a Science ...
>We agree that psychology for the most part is not yet a science.
>Now my PhD. is in mathematics, which I would not claim as a field of
>science, but it is known as the language of science and called the
>"Queen of Sciences" by some.
>Consequently, I see a glaring contradiction, when you claim to
>have some knowledge of science based on the fact that you spent
>10 years in pursuing a non-science degree.
>Now I have had no formal training in psychology, but I have
>enough human/layman's intuition of the subject to see from your
>lead paragraph and other messages to SAS-L that, although you may
>need serious help, I can not give it, so I will respond no