SAS vs. SPLUS vs. SAS
in [SAS]
|
From: rjf2 on 11 Dec 2009 16:23 Hi Paul have not used S-Plus since around 2000-2002 so this may be Old News from S-Plus conference attendance they know their strength is: * rapid prototyping * great graphics downside: * you want speed! load all data into memory! column-wise operations * need to upgrade hardware w/more memory for large data sets * check documentation to find BigData functions which, iirc, operate like SAS does: row-wise previous version: v7 current version: v8.1 *** SAS: SAS/IML now has IML/Studio which enables access to R programs R is the open-source version of S+ re 'experimental' v9.3 ETA: 2011. Ron Fehd the other software maven CDC Atlanta GA USA RJF2 at cdc dot gov > From: Paul Miller > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:10 PM > Subject: SAS vs. SPLUS vs. SAS > > Hello Everyone, > > I've recently become interested in sequential clinical trials > designs. I've purchased a book that discusses the topic > called "Analysis of Clinical Trials using SAS: A Practical > Guide." Upon trying to run some of the code samples from the > book, I've learned that we don't have Proc IML. Until > recently, I was under the impression that, as a data > manipulation feature, Proc IML was a part of Base SAS. I was > disappointed to learn that this is not the case and was even > more disappointed when I learned what it would cost to add > IML to our server license. > > So I'm now considering some alternatives. SPLUS has an add-on > called SEQTRIAL that can be used for sequential clinical > trials designs. I've obtained a 30-day trial and spent some > time playing around with the SEQTRIAL component. I have > virtually no experience using SPLUS, but the software appears > to be of good quality and adding SEQTRIAL to our current > version of SPLUS would be cheaper than purchasing IML. > > A third possibility would be to use the SEQDESIGN and SEQTEST > procedures that became available in SAS 9.2. Although I don't > currently have SAS 9.2, I should have it shortly. One concern > I have about these procedures is that they are > "experimental." I believe that SAS Institute normally > indicates that such procedures should not be used in the > "production environment." So it's not clear how I could use > these procedures to do work for any of our clients and it's > not clear how long these procedures will remain experimental. > > At this point, I was wondering if anyone out there has > experience with any of these options and would be willing to > comment on their relative merits. Also, I was hoping someone > might be able to comment on the relative merits of SAS vs. > SPLUS. My thinking was that if we started using SPLUS, this > might give us some additional capabilities that we wouldn't > normally get through SAS. > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new > Internet Explorer� 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for > Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ > >
From: oloolo on 11 Dec 2009 17:23 matrix is indispensible tool in implementing modern data mining algorithm, but we only have native matrix opertion capability in IML. Recently I discovered that in SAS/Base SAS/Stat, we were able to conduct several important matrix manipulations and I able to translate those prototype algorithms on textbook into SAS. I just submited a paper to SGF2010 on this topic, hope the paper can be accepted. On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:32 -0800, Paul Miller <pjmiller_57(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote: >Hello Everyone, >� >I've recently become interested in sequential clinical trials designs. I've purchased a book that discusses the topic called “Analysis of Clinical Trials using SAS: A Practical Guide.” Upon trying to run some of the code samples from the book, I've learned that we don't have Proc IML. Until recently, I was under the impression that, as a data manipulation feature, Proc IML was a part of Base SAS. I was disappointed to learn that this is not the case and was even more disappointed when I learned what it would cost to add IML to our server license. >� >So I'm now considering some alternatives. SPLUS has an add-on called SEQTRIAL that can be used for sequential clinical trials designs. I've obtained a 30-day trial and spent some time playing around with the SEQTRIAL component. I have virtually no experience using SPLUS, but the software appears to be of good quality and adding SEQTRIAL to our current version of SPLUS would be cheaper than purchasing IML. >� >A third possibility would be to use the SEQDESIGN and SEQTEST procedures that became available in SAS 9.2. Although I don't currently have SAS 9.2, I should have it shortly. One concern I have about these procedures is that they are “experimental.” I believe that SAS Institute normally indicates that such procedures should not be used in the “production environment.” So it's not clear how I could use these procedures to do work for any of our clients and it's not clear how long these procedures will remain experimental. >� >At this point, I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with any of these options and would be willing to comment on their relative merits. Also, I was hoping someone might be able to comment on the relative merits of SAS vs. SPLUS. My thinking was that if we started using SPLUS, this might give us some additional capabilities that we wouldn't normally get through SAS. >� >Thanks, >� >Paul � > >� >� >� >� __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
From: Dale McLerran on 11 Dec 2009 18:46 Paul, I don't have experience with interim analyses for clinical trials. However, I would add into your mix (perhaps as an alternative to SPlus) packages for R which will perform the same types of analyses. There are quite a few packages in R for analyzing group sequential design data. Among them: GroupSeq AGSDest gsDesign ldbounds MChtest PwrGSD seqmon There might be others. R has syntax which in many instances is identical to syntax of SPlus. Since R is freeware and routinely has user contributed packages added to its base, the result is that R frequently has the most up-to-date set of tools for data analyses. If you find what you need with R, you wouldn't have to purchase a license for SPlus. Dale --------------------------------------- Dale McLerran Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org Ph: (206) 667-2926 Fax: (206) 667-5977 --------------------------------------- --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Paul Miller <pjmiller_57(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote: > From: Paul Miller <pjmiller_57(a)YAHOO.COM> > Subject: SAS vs. SPLUS vs. SAS > To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:09 PM > Hello Everyone, > � > I've recently become interested in sequential clinical > trials designs. I've purchased a book that discusses the > topic called “Analysis of Clinical Trials using SAS: A > Practical Guide.” Upon trying to run some of the code > samples from the book, I've learned that we don't have > Proc IML. Until recently, I was under the impression that, > as a data manipulation feature, Proc IML was a part of Base > SAS. I was disappointed to learn that this is not the case > and was even more disappointed when I learned what it would > cost to add IML to our server license. > � > So I'm now considering some alternatives. SPLUS has an > add-on called SEQTRIAL that can be used for sequential > clinical trials designs. I've obtained a 30-day trial and > spent some time playing around with the SEQTRIAL component. > I have virtually no experience using SPLUS, but the software > appears to be of good quality and adding SEQTRIAL to our > current version of SPLUS would be cheaper than purchasing > IML. > � > A third possibility would be to use the SEQDESIGN and > SEQTEST procedures that became available in SAS 9.2. > Although I don't currently have SAS 9.2, I should have it > shortly. One concern I have about these procedures is that > they are “experimental.” I believe that SAS Institute > normally indicates that such procedures should not be used > in the “production environment.” So it's not clear how > I could use these procedures to do work for any of our > clients and it's not clear how long these procedures will > remain experimental. > � > At this point, I was wondering if anyone out there has > experience with any of these options and would be willing to > comment on their relative merits. Also, I was hoping someone > might be able to comment on the relative merits of SAS vs. > SPLUS. My thinking was that if we started using SPLUS, this > might give us some additional capabilities that we > wouldn't normally get through SAS. > � > Thanks, > � > Paul � > > � > � > � > � > > > � � � > __________________________________________________________________ > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new > Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for > Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ >
From: oloolo on 11 Dec 2009 19:17 NO, I am not talking about PROC FCMP. I don't have SAS9.2 and I can't do any test on it either. If I really need a serious computing agent within DATA STEP ( I know functions compiled by FCMP can also be used in other PROCs), I will turn to JavaObj. My way is to discover the mathematical relationship between the underlying algorithms used in various PROC in SAS/STAT and try to build the link between them, either by developing iterative algorithms or directly resort to the results. On example is observing that one computation method for PCA is via SVD, so that we can do SVD. There are also many features in SAS/STAT we can discover to facilitate our implementation of new algorithms. The SVD discovery stands out because SVD is at the heart of many modern data mining algorithms and from here, we can go a lot further. On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:08:00 -0800, Dale McLerran <stringplayer_2(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote: >If you are referring to matrix manipulations which can be >performed employing routines made available with PROC FCMP, >those routines are not an adequate substitute for a >full-fledged matrix programming language. Also, I have >found that the matrix routines are not really accessible >in SAS/STAT procedures the way that they should be. > >I have brought this to the attention of SI. Their response >was that they were not aware of the problems until I reported >that I could not employ the matrix operations during execution >of NLMIXED code. On further consideration, they determined >that the FCMP procedure only supports derivatives of functions >and does not support derivatives of CALL routines. Moreover, >the FCMP procedure does not support returning an array from >a function. Thus, the FCMP matrix operators have limited >utility within SAS procedures. > >I have railed against SI for years about their inability >to provide matrix capability for procedures which accept >programming statements. I really thought that SAS had >overcome some of these issues when they released PROC FCMP >and stated that functions and routines coded in FCMP were >available to both the data step and procedures which supported >programming statements. SI still has quite a way to go >with this functionality. > >Dale > >--------------------------------------- >Dale McLerran >Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org >Ph: (206) 667-2926 >Fax: (206) 667-5977 >--------------------------------------- > > >--- On Fri, 12/11/09, oloolo <dynamicpanel(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote: > >> From: oloolo <dynamicpanel(a)YAHOO.COM> >> Subject: Re: SAS vs. SPLUS vs. SAS >> To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >> Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 2:23 PM >> matrix is indispensible tool in >> implementing modern data mining algorithm, >> but we only have native matrix opertion capability in IML. >> >> Recently I discovered that in SAS/Base SAS/Stat, we were able to conduct >> several important matrix manipulations and I able to translate those >> prototype algorithms on textbook into SAS. >> >> I just submited a paper to SGF2010 on this topic, hope the paper can be >> accepted. >> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:32 -0800, Paul Miller <pjmiller_57(a)YAHOO.COM> >> wrote: >> >> >Hello Everyone, >> > >> >I’ve recently become interested in sequential >> clinical trials designs. >> I’ve purchased a book that discusses the topic >> called “Analysis of Clinical >> Trials using SAS: A Practical Guide.� Upon trying to >> run some of the code >> samples from the book, I’ve learned that we >> don’t have Proc IML. Until >> recently, I was under the impression that, as a data >> manipulation feature, >> Proc IML was a part of Base SAS. I was disappointed to >> learn that this is >> not the case and was even more disappointed when I learned >> what it would >> cost to add IML to our server license. >> > >> >So I’m now considering some alternatives. SPLUS >> has an add-on called >> SEQTRIAL that can be used for sequential clinical trials >> designs. I’ve >> obtained a 30-day trial and spent some time playing around >> with the >> SEQTRIAL component. I have virtually no experience using >> SPLUS, but the >> software appears to be of good quality and adding SEQTRIAL >> to our current >> version of SPLUS would be cheaper than purchasing IML. >> > >> >A third possibility would be to use the SEQDESIGN and >> SEQTEST procedures >> that became available in SAS 9.2. Although I don’t >> currently have SAS 9.2, >> I should have it shortly. One concern I have about these >> procedures is that >> they are “experimental.� I believe that SAS >> Institute normally indicates >> that such procedures should not be used in the >> “production environment.� So >> it’s not clear how I could use these procedures to >> do work for any of our >> clients and it’s not clear how long these procedures >> will remain >> experimental. >> > >> >At this point, I was wondering if anyone out there has >> experience with any >> of these options and would be willing to comment on their >> relative merits. >> Also, I was hoping someone might be able to comment on the >> relative merits >> of SAS vs. SPLUS. My thinking was that if we started using >> SPLUS, this >> might give us some additional capabilities that we >> wouldn’t normally get >> through SAS. >> > >> >Thanks, >> > >> >Paul  >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> � � � >> __________________________________________________________________ >> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new >> Internet >> Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! >> at >> http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ >>
From: Dale McLerran on 11 Dec 2009 19:08 If you are referring to matrix manipulations which can be performed employing routines made available with PROC FCMP, those routines are not an adequate substitute for a full-fledged matrix programming language. Also, I have found that the matrix routines are not really accessible in SAS/STAT procedures the way that they should be. I have brought this to the attention of SI. Their response was that they were not aware of the problems until I reported that I could not employ the matrix operations during execution of NLMIXED code. On further consideration, they determined that the FCMP procedure only supports derivatives of functions and does not support derivatives of CALL routines. Moreover, the FCMP procedure does not support returning an array from a function. Thus, the FCMP matrix operators have limited utility within SAS procedures. I have railed against SI for years about their inability to provide matrix capability for procedures which accept programming statements. I really thought that SAS had overcome some of these issues when they released PROC FCMP and stated that functions and routines coded in FCMP were available to both the data step and procedures which supported programming statements. SI still has quite a way to go with this functionality. Dale --------------------------------------- Dale McLerran Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org Ph: (206) 667-2926 Fax: (206) 667-5977 --------------------------------------- --- On Fri, 12/11/09, oloolo <dynamicpanel(a)YAHOO.COM> wrote: > From: oloolo <dynamicpanel(a)YAHOO.COM> > Subject: Re: SAS vs. SPLUS vs. SAS > To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 2:23 PM > matrix is indispensible tool in > implementing modern data mining algorithm, > but we only have native matrix opertion capability in IML. > > Recently I discovered that in SAS/Base SAS/Stat, we were able to conduct > several important matrix manipulations and I able to translate those > prototype algorithms on textbook into SAS. > > I just submited a paper to SGF2010 on this topic, hope the paper can be > accepted. > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:32 -0800, Paul Miller <pjmiller_57(a)YAHOO.COM> > wrote: > > >Hello Everyone, > > > >I’ve recently become interested in sequential > clinical trials designs. > I’ve purchased a book that discusses the topic > called “Analysis of Clinical > Trials using SAS: A Practical Guide.� Upon trying to > run some of the code > samples from the book, I’ve learned that we > don’t have Proc IML. Until > recently, I was under the impression that, as a data > manipulation feature, > Proc IML was a part of Base SAS. I was disappointed to > learn that this is > not the case and was even more disappointed when I learned > what it would > cost to add IML to our server license. > > > >So I’m now considering some alternatives. SPLUS > has an add-on called > SEQTRIAL that can be used for sequential clinical trials > designs. I’ve > obtained a 30-day trial and spent some time playing around > with the > SEQTRIAL component. I have virtually no experience using > SPLUS, but the > software appears to be of good quality and adding SEQTRIAL > to our current > version of SPLUS would be cheaper than purchasing IML. > > > >A third possibility would be to use the SEQDESIGN and > SEQTEST procedures > that became available in SAS 9.2. Although I don’t > currently have SAS 9.2, > I should have it shortly. One concern I have about these > procedures is that > they are “experimental.� I believe that SAS > Institute normally indicates > that such procedures should not be used in the > “production environment.� So > it’s not clear how I could use these procedures to > do work for any of our > clients and it’s not clear how long these procedures > will remain > experimental. > > > >At this point, I was wondering if anyone out there has > experience with any > of these options and would be willing to comment on their > relative merits. > Also, I was hoping someone might be able to comment on the > relative merits > of SAS vs. SPLUS. My thinking was that if we started using > SPLUS, this > might give us some additional capabilities that we > wouldn’t normally get > through SAS. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Paul  > > > > > > > > > > > > > � � � > __________________________________________________________________ > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new > Internet > Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! > at > http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ >
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: output regression coefficients from proc glm Next: SQL and first. or last. |