I completely agree - I had the misfortune recently to have to use SAS
to man-handle some huge datasets. I likewise used SPSS a while ago,
and they are both horribly inefficient from a users standpoint.
Consider what I get by typing
bys A: sum, d
versus what you would have to write in SAS (ugh) to get the same
amount of info.
That said, because of this, I would love it if Stata got serious
somehow about handling big datasets. I am pretty ambivalent about
Stata being better on integrating user-written routines into official
program. I realize that it's probably a pain to Stata Inc, but I do
notice that until I have a real need to have something be done, I
don't go looking for it in SSC or the Archives - I look in the command
helps. So sometimes, because I am lazy, I miss out on some cool
routines. Also though, having Stata be more integrated would emphasize
the efficiency which I noted above. Consider:
log using boo, replace
log close
log2html boo.smcl, blah
I could just say
log using doo.html, html (blah)
log close
All in all, my complaints about Stata are those of a petulant lazy
child - and in some ways, I complain because I appreciate Stata enough
that I feel beholden to 1) spread the gospel and 2) make it better, as
I wish it were.
Ok, its Sunday......
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:28:42 -0400, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm one of those people who feels that Stata in its current version has come
> very close to perfect! My concern is that with too many "improvements" it
> will migrate to the land of bloatware. I prefer to see Stata stay lean and
> mean. In particular, I would hate to see it start to look like SPSS, a
> package I fled many years ago.
>
> I do have one tiny wish for change, though. I often want to re-examine the
> output of a run, and I launch Stata by double-clicking the icon of the smcl
> file it produced. Problem is, the *same* icon is also used for do-files (at
> least in the Windows version). It is easy to hit the do-file by mistake,
> causing the analysis to be re-run. If the analysis is quick, and if the data
> files it uses have not changed since the original run, this is a trivial
> problem. But in the opposite circumstance, I then have to abort the run, drag
> out my backups and restore the smcl-file, which has been clobbered by the -log
> using foo, replace- command in the do file. If the do-file also modifies any
> of the data sets, then these too must be restored from backups.
>
> All that is needed to avoid this is a distinct icon for smcl-files. There are
> distinct icons for .dta and .gph files, so it can't be hard to do.
>
> Pax vobiscum.
>
> Clyde Schechter
> Dept. of Family & Social Medicine
> Albert Einstein College of Medicine
> Bronx, NY, USA
>
> *
> * 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/
>
*
* 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/
