I am sure this is a common view. It doesn't in
fact need much emphasis to StataCorp. Stata's
developers love implementing new modelling
commands. What's more, they realise that
such commands are important for marketing.
Some key groups of researchers would be likely
to migrate to Stata if such-and-such
and this-or-that kind of modelling were implemented. And the
history is that once groups migrate,
they often stay with Stata.
What is also true is that lots of things
that have been added to Stata on the interface
reflect market demands. The Windows port
was late, in marketing terms, and driven largely by the fact
that the market was moving that way. Stata's
heart didn't commit it to a Windows port.
Things like dialogs are driven by the market.
In short, the market is highly heterogeneous. Statalist
I guess to be far from a miniature of the Stata market.
But be sure that StataCorp listen to us seriously.
It is just the answer to a request may sometimes
be a couple of years in coming...
Nick
[email protected]
SamL
> > If StataCorp are listening, then I would like to add the
> capability of
> > saving multiple sets of windowing preference sets to the
> Stata Wish list.
>
> Below I make a statement. It is direct. There is no anger
> in it. I am
> from the east coast of the US where being polite also allows one to be
> direct. Please do not hear anger in my words. They are just
> my direct
> statement about the facts as I see them. I admit I could be wrong. I
> think my view has some strong relationship to reality,
> though. But I am
> willing to be corrected.
>
> So, here goes.
>
> If StataCorp are listening, I have no problem with adding "the
> capability of saving multiple sets of windowing preference sets to the
> Stata Wish list" in the abstract. But the workday is not infinite.
> Hence, my preference would be for StataCorp to devote like
> 95% of the time
> to extending the models estimable and extending the things one can do
> after estimation. For example, multilevel models are not feasibly
> estimated in Stata, despite the presence of gllamm. (While gllamm is
> nice, it does not work well with datasets greater than, say,
> 10,000, and
> it is not supported, while a module for multilevel modelling
> that is fully
> part of stata would be supported). The ability to estimate
> such models
> will make it possible for us to learn new things about the
> world. I hope
> StataCorp prioritizes those things that will help us learn
> new facts about
> the world above other possible priorities (e.g., tweaking the
> interface,
> surely a complex programming task with comparatively little benefit
> compared to an at least equally complex programming task of
> introducing
> new models into stata).
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
