Date:         Mon, 26 May 1997 09:13:22 -0400
Reply-To:     Steve Light <lights@DATACEUTICS.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Steve Light <lights@DATACEUTICS.COM>
Organization: DataCeutics, Inc
Subject:      Re: Sas for WIndows Editor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The interactive SAS editor (in Windows) is, to my way of thinking,
inexcusable. Having become somewhat accustomed to 'nicer' editing
environments on the windows platform it is hard to see why SAS remains
so weak.
 
Useful features readily available in many Windows edit environments
which SAS does not support include:
 
        multiple edit windows
        multiple windows of (one) log or output
        syntax highlighting (use of color)
        flexible text formatting
        modal search and replace
        automatic backup file generation
        keyboard macro record/playback
        syntax recognition (complete words, recognize syntax errors)
        column select
        bookmarking
        useful right mouse menus
 
These are all valuable productvity tools for people who write many
programs and they are easily available with inexpensive editors like
Ultraedit, Multiedit, Winedit, etc.  Personally, I only use the
interactive SAS editor for writing 'quicky' programs. For more
significant tasks I use a good editor and either drag my files into the
SAS AWS or run batch mode from the explorer.  I drag files from the
explorer to my editor to open them, to run files I double click on a SAS
file icon (set batch mode as the default explorer action).  Most windows
editors can be configed to submit the currently loaded program to SAS.
 
The more flexible editing environments are useful for working with logs
and output just as much as for program development.
 
I have found that many SAS programmers have not tried using editors (in
windows) other than the SAS AWS, but once they do they never go back.
My personal preference is for ultraedit, downloadable from
www.idmcomp.com, and it is well supported by the author.  There are many
other choices, most are inexpensive and very good.
 
 
Steve Light
 
DataCeutics, Inc.
 
 
 
Peter Crawford wrote:
>
> In article <5m39n6$7d4@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, David Michael Wright
> <david@cats.ucsc.edu> writes
> >In article <eOYfnDAc9tfzEw$N@crawfordsoftware.demon.co.uk>,
> >Peter Crawford  <Peter@crawfordsoftware.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >|>
>
> (snip)
> sorry, I seem to be going about this the wrong way!
>
> With so many people asking me why I continue to limit my contracting
> to SAS, when "it is missing the way" with windows, I apply my defenses
> when these criticisms of SAS return.
> I would be more understanding of SAS's limitations if I weren't in so
> deep.
>
> What am I missing in windows conformance?
> I can list many features I miss from the TSO/SPF editor, and the
> incredible flexibility of customizing resources in X-motif on Solaris,
> The original question suggested "Windows" editing is better than SAS.
>
> Perhaps SAS-L can explain what it is I am missing outside of SAS in
> "windows" editing.
> Most comments so far talk of the alternatives like PFE and HOSTEDIT
> alternatives on unix, not on the features missing from SAS.
> Lets hear it for "windows editing" !
> --
> Peter Crawford                      Peter@crawfordsoftware.demon.co.uk