Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:01:00 -0400
Reply-To: "Howard Schreier <hs AT dc-sug DOT org>" <nospam@HOWLES.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Howard Schreier <hs AT dc-sug DOT org>" <nospam@HOWLES.COM>
Subject: Re: SAS Pricing (was Re: SCL Questions (hijacked thread))
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:04:16 -0400, Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>
>I totally agree with Kevin that SAS/AF, Enterprise Miner and a number of
>other tools simply cost too much for many of us. Kevin mentioned small
>businesses and startups, but add in all of the small, large and very large
>not-for-profits as well.
I believe that SAS donates or at least discounts software for some NFPs.
>And, did you know that, for multiple processor
>environments, each modules' price increases with each additional processor?
>Can SAS macro language be improved? I would definitely hope that some of
>its akward requirements could be made less akward. And I was quite
>surprised that such enhancements weren't there in SAS9.
>But I think that the same thing goes for SAS/AF (including SCL). I
>haven't yet had the three days of "right training", thus can't address how
>SCL could be improved. But, I did get three days of the "right training"
>for SAS/AF and was quite impressed. However, as others have mentioned,
>one quick improvement would be to make AF totally object oriented and
>would only allow, but not require, one to write or enhance SCL code.
>Interestingly, none of the nice OOP modules translate into SCL code.
>Doing so would have been something I would have expected in SAS9.
>The same criticisms go for EM. Nice OOP interface, but no way of
>interfacing outside of the OOP environment.
>Similarly, why doesn't the data step finally contain a simple way to
>invoke macro-type loops and variables without having to invoke macros?
>However, I doubt if JG is listening, as I've heard and seen the same
>criticisms many times before.