Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:25:31 -0400
Reply-To: Anthony Ayiomamitis <ayiomamitis@IBM.NET>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis <ayiomamitis@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: SASTIP: optimising SQL - lighten up
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gaylen Fraley wrote:
> Like many, I've been following this thread with both a "historical" and
> sometimes "hysterical" look. Having been an applications/systems programmer
> for 28 years using Basic, Assembler, Cobol, PL/1, RPG 1, and a SAS
> programmer/analyst/developer/? for 19 of those years, a SAS consultant for
> about 10 of those 19 years, I have had to maintain and translate Cobol to
> SAS, PL/1 to SAS, Focus to SAS, RPG 1 to SAS, on and on to ad nauseam. Good
> code ? Bad code? Hard to say. I can't help but remember the religious
> wars about goto's in Cobol ......
I have experienced similar battles. Fall-through LABELS in Cobol are
a cardinal sin in Cobol whereas in SCL, for example, they are very
useful and not necessarily bad programming style in SCL. I remember one
time spending three hours arguing why a push button for quitting a FRAME
entry was bundled with the TERM label of the same entry.
> Every so often religious wars break out in programming/language camps. I
> have observed and participated over the years, myself. But in the words of
> Joshua (the computer in Wargames), sometimes the best move is "not to play"!
In fact one "solution" that is always forgotten and emphasized in
game theory courses is the most obvious ... "do nothing". However, I
have a huge difficulty when I see SAS misrepresented or abused (or at
least what I perceive as misrepresentation or abuse) as it is very dear
to my heart!
> Come on guys, lighten up!
Would you use PROC EASY or PROC LIGHTEN? Which one is more efficient?