Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:43:30 -0800
Reply-To: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: What is difference between S language and SAS IML
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Recently I am studying S language. I found that SAS has a product IML,
>which is very like S.
>In my opinion, IML is a copy of S language. And IML only complete S
>If I study S first, the IML is easy to learn.
>Any opinion is appreciated
I would say that SAS/IML is *nothing* like S.
First, IML and its antecedents (PROC MATRIX, ...) are way older
than S. So there's no 'copy' issues.
Second, their only similarities are the natural similarities in *all* the
languages that do matrix manipulations as the basic operators.
Look at APL, Glim, Ox, Perl's PDL, .... You'll see the basic overlaps
that they all have.
But S - particularly, S-Plus and R - is a functional language, instead
of a procedural language. So they are not even oriented the same
S is aimed at covering a wide variety of functionality, much like
APL. IML is not: it is aimed at matrix operations that the rest of SAS
does not cover. That's not strictly true, since IML has functions
and call routines which cover lots of SAS proc features nowadays
(like PROC ROBUSTREG, PROC ARIMA, ....). But IML is really
aimed at the matrix manipulation categories which you wouldn't
want to do in other modules of SAS.
If you study S in conjunction with languages like APL, you will
indeed find SAS/IML easy to use. But when using IML, one of
my rules is to make sure that SAS is not already providing the
utility I'm about to spend a day writing.
David L. Cassell
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330
From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1