Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R
in [SAS]
|
From: Alan Churchill on 6 Mar 2010 22:59 Jack, For clients in corporate America, there is little incentive to port it to platforms other than Windows. Linux and Macs have had little footprint. Will this change? Not sure but I would bet that SAS has not attempted the port. My guess is that not having a port under Mono does not mean it won't port but that it hasn't been attempted due to lack of perceived market-share. I have not attempted a Mono port so I do not know what it entails. EG also has older COM components which would not port. Remember, EG started under MFC and then was moved to .NET. Java is known as "write-once, debug everywhere". That isn't a slam against Java but a reality that platforms differ so much that having a holy grail of computing that works everywhere is a dream more than a reality. Programmers optimize for the target platform and it may not run on the next platform they try it on. Other than Java, I am not sure what people would propose for UI development on non-Windows platforms that would also run on Windows. For clients, .NET is hard to beat. For servers, whatever works, works. Alan Alan Churchill Savian www.savian.net Office: (719) 687-5954 Cell: (719) 310-4870 -----Original Message----- From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Hamilton Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:13 AM To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R The problem with .NET is that it restricts programs to being run on Windows. In theory, some programs could run on other platforms using Mono, but I'll believe that when SAS Institute gives us the Mac version of Enterprise Guide. -- Jack Hamilton jfh(a)alumni.stanford.org Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:19 pm, Alan Churchill wrote: > Never going to happen on the .NET front and SAS was right to choose it (they > should do more .NET, not less). > > Also, name a product where Microsoft charges outrageous fees for underlying > code? .NET is required to run Windows so it is core technology and most of > the code base has been released to the public. > > Java, BTW, is solely owned by Sun. What other technology is proposed for > creating UIs? > > Alan > > Alan Churchill > Savian > www.savian.net > Office: (719) 687-5954 > Cell: (719) 310-4870 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of > xlr82sas > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:22 PM > To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R > > On Mar 4, 11:01 am, stringplaye...(a)YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote: >> --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> >>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R >>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >>> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:55 AM Three little points: >> >>> 1) >>> Dale: >>> You're not really taking exception; I wrote: >>>>> that's why the R interface in in IML; OTHER PARTS OF SAS don't >>>>> have any data type that loosely corresponds to an R frame. >>> In other words, I agree that an R frame and a SAS data set are very >>> similar; it's just that only IML has any facilities for manipulating >>> SAS data sets as entities. (Unless perhaps you count the table >>> processing language). >> >> Jonathan, >> >> Can you elaborate on the facilities in IML for manipulating data sets >> as entities. I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument. >> >> Also, why must a SAS data set be mapped into an R data frame as an >> entity? >> >> Dale >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Dale McLerran >> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >> mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org >> Ph: (206) 667-2926 >> Fax: (206) 667-5977 >> ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Hi Sas-Lers, > > Proc matrix was part of base SAS and had a couple of nice properties on > big IBM mainframes. > > 1. It had limited but useful 128bit numeric capabilites(way ahead > of its time) > 2. It used IBM's separate 'hardware vector engine' for fast > parallel vector operations (way ahead of its time) > > SOAPBOX ON: > > I made heavy use of 'proc matrix' and when SAS decided to rip it out of > base and charge very high fees for large two sided 8 way mainframes, my > management was not pleased. > > SAS did provide a translator from Matrix to IML. > > Here is what scares me at SAS: > > 1. It looks like Enterprise Guide is the window to future SAS and > SAS_SAP. Also it looks like EG is somehow in bed with Microsoft's > proprietary .NET. Suppose Microsoft comes out with a Starship Enterprise > Version of .NET and decides to charge $500,000 dollars for Startship > Enterprise .NET. SAS is also prety good at playing this game. > > 2. I worry about EG as a poison pill for programmers and companies. > Suppose programmers get sucked into the givaway EG. SAS throws in IOM, > metadata servers, stored processes, data architechure tools .. low cost at > first. Then comes the 'proc matrix' hammer and programmers and companies > have to pony up with massive spending increases or massive reprogramming to > move away from SAS-SAP. For instance if the once free components of EG, like > proc matrix, are now enterprise versions at extra cost. > > I think EG should reflect the future costs now. It should be priced at > least 2x Windows Base SAS + SAS-Connect. Companies need to take a close look > at future IT costs and SAS's revenue strategy with respect to EG. Just look > at the costs asssociated with SAP. I also don't like it when SAS gives away > 'ODS GRAHICS' and then charges for it later. I know this in not strickly > bait and switch, but it smells. > > I also find it very hypocritical for SAS to complain openly about an > inefficient interface to Oracle, when SAS does not even have a silient ODBC > product. > > SOAPBOX OFF:
From: Alan Churchill on 7 Mar 2010 11:56 C# is free. They even have a free Visual Studio version which I use for teaching. I am sure someone can make a $500K C# but what would the point be? SAS did not choose .NET over Java for EG because of license issues (BTW, SAS uses a lot more Java than .NET). Finally, Lotus 1-2-3 was not better than Excel. It was early on but lost out. I used to program both of them and Lotus failed to keep up as did WordPerfect. You remember the adage about it takes 3 times for MS to get it correct and that was about right. We were a 100% WordPerfect shop at MCI when I was there and then some of us started playing around with Word (around v3). The secretaries didn't want to switch until they saw how easy it was for some of us others. They then began to switch and loved Word. Lotus took longer for the finance guys but they eventually moved as well. Neither WordPerfect nor Lotus kept up. Additionally, the Office bundles were more attractive because we didn't have to know multiple interfaces (Harvard Graphics, WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3). Besides all of that, it is water under the bridge. MS has been a different company for over a decade. Alan Alan Churchill Savian www.savian.net Office: (719) 687-5954 Cell: (719) 310-4870 -----Original Message----- From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of xlr82sas Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:37 PM To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R On Mar 6, 10:12 am, j...(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > The problem with .NET is that it restricts programs to being run on Windows. > > In theory, some programs could run on other platforms using Mono, but I'll believe that when SAS Institute gives us the Mac version of Enterprise Guide. > > -- > Jack Hamilton > j...(a)alumni.stanford.org > Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. > > On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:19 pm, Alan Churchill wrote: > > > > > Never going to happen on the .NET front and SAS was right to choose it (they > > should do more .NET, not less). > > > Also, name a product where Microsoft charges outrageous fees for underlying > > code? .NET is required to run Windows so it is core technology and most of > > the code base has been released to the public. > > > Java, BTW, is solely owned by Sun. What other technology is proposed for > > creating UIs? > > > Alan > > > Alan Churchill > > Savian > >www.savian.net > > Office: (719) 687-5954 > > Cell: (719) 310-4870 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of > > xlr82sas > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:22 PM > > To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R > > > On Mar 4, 11:01 am, stringplaye...(a)YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote: > >> --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> wrote: > > >>> From: Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> > >>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R > >>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > >>> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:55 AM Three little points: > > >>> 1) > >>> Dale: > >>> You're not really taking exception; I wrote: > >>>>> that's why the R interface in in IML; OTHER PARTS OF SAS don't > >>>>> have any data type that loosely corresponds to an R frame. > >>> In other words, I agree that an R frame and a SAS data set are very > >>> similar; it's just that only IML has any facilities for manipulating > >>> SAS data sets as entities. (Unless perhaps you count the table > >>> processing language). > > >> Jonathan, > > >> Can you elaborate on the facilities in IML for manipulating data sets > >> as entities. I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument. > > >> Also, why must a SAS data set be mapped into an R data frame as an > >> entity? > > >> Dale > > >> --------------------------------------- > >> Dale McLerran > >> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > >> mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org > >> Ph: (206) 667-2926 > >> Fax: (206) 667-5977 > >> ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Hi Sas-Lers, > > > Proc matrix was part of base SAS and had a couple of nice properties on > > big IBM mainframes. > > > 1. It had limited but useful 128bit numeric capabilites(way ahead > > of its time) > > 2. It used IBM's separate 'hardware vector engine' for fast > > parallel vector operations (way ahead of its time) > > > SOAPBOX ON: > > > I made heavy use of 'proc matrix' and when SAS decided to rip it out of > > base and charge very high fees for large two sided 8 way mainframes, my > > management was not pleased. > > > SAS did provide a translator from Matrix to IML. > > > Here is what scares me at SAS: > > > 1. It looks like Enterprise Guide is the window to future SAS and > > SAS_SAP. Also it looks like EG is somehow in bed with Microsoft's > > proprietary .NET. Suppose Microsoft comes out with a Starship Enterprise > > Version of .NET and decides to charge $500,000 dollars for Startship > > Enterprise .NET. SAS is also prety good at playing this game. > > > 2. I worry about EG as a poison pill for programmers and companies. > > Suppose programmers get sucked into the givaway EG. SAS throws in IOM, > > metadata servers, stored processes, data architechure tools .. low cost at > > first. Then comes the 'proc matrix' hammer and programmers and companies > > have to pony up with massive spending increases or massive reprogramming to > > move away from SAS-SAP. For instance if the once free components of EG, like > > proc matrix, are now enterprise versions at extra cost. > > > I think EG should reflect the future costs now. It should be priced at > > least 2x Windows Base SAS + SAS-Connect. Companies need to take a close look > > at future IT costs and SAS's revenue strategy with respect to EG. Just look > > at the costs asssociated with SAP. I also don't like it when SAS gives away > > 'ODS GRAHICS' and then charges for it later. I know this in not strickly > > bait and switch, but it smells. > > > I also find it very hypocritical for SAS to complain openly about an > > inefficient interface to Oracle, when SAS does not even have a silient ODBC > > product. > > > SOAPBOX OFF:- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am not a lawyer but the details of licenses and contracts is in the fine print. SUN Java -- GNU GPLv2 License I believe Java is licensed under popular GNU GPLv2 terms. Everything associated Java language, Java class libraries .... is open Code isolation is required, my drop downs are ok because I do not interact with R, perl or Java with changes at JAVA source code level. I don't think you can make changes to Java code and stick it in your software and charge $500,000 dollars. Microsoft .NET is under the Apache license. Apache license: it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software as well as free and open source software. Apache is preferred by coporations because it imposes few restriction on source code usage. This is why SAS uses .NET instead of Java. It has nothing to do with software quality. I don't think everthing is open in .NET, ie certain key stacks - beyond the scope of my knowledge. As far as windows 'open source' minimally it would be nice if Microsoft made available the source code for all the crtical APIs, like windows explorer. I think there are even more issues with C# and its relation to .NET. (Microsoft charging for C##) I don't see why a company cant develop an Enterprise .NET(usng .NET code) along with C## and charge for it. SOAPBOX ON: I couple of lines in a license or contract/license can make all the difference. Microsoft is where it is because of a few lines in a contract/ license with IBM that allowed MS to develop the MS-DOS operating system. There used to be an IBM-DOS and a MS-DOS. What microsoft did was put some horrible GUI on 16bit DOS and sucker the public into using it. With the GUI as an anchor microsoft developed inferior MS-WORD(Wordperfect was much beter) and excel(lotus was better). SAS is now using the EG GUI to sucker executives and bean counters to eliminating Windows and SAS-connect. It's al about the almighty dollar. SAS seeks the SAP fortune, however along with SAS-SAP comes a much lower quality SAS. SOAPBOX OFF: SOAPBOX ON; Microsoft did change the .NET from a weaker 'Community License' to the Appache license a couple of years ago. Users often tend to be supecious of Microsoft because it does things like issue fixes to operating systems like Vista and then has the nerve to charge for Windows 7. Also Microsoft has the best lawyers in the business.
From: Jack Hamilton on 7 Mar 2010 13:31 I'm not sure why you keep bringing up SAP. If I wanted an example of a company that takes good products and ruins them, I would choose Computer Associates or Symantec (primarily because they have general-purpose products that I'm familiar with, where SAP has a special purpose product I'm not familiar with). What is the point of the comparison with SAP? -- Jack Hamilton jfh(a)alumni.stanford.org Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:36 pm, xlr82sas wrote: > On Mar 6, 10:12 am, j...(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG (Jack Hamilton) wrote: >> The problem with .NET is that it restricts programs to being run on Windows. >> >> In theory, some programs could run on other platforms using Mono, but I'll believe that when SAS Institute gives us the Mac version of Enterprise Guide. >> >> -- >> Jack Hamilton >> j...(a)alumni.stanford.org >> Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. >> >> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:19 pm, Alan Churchill wrote: >> >> >> >>> Never going to happen on the .NET front and SAS was right to choose it (they >>> should do more .NET, not less). >> >>> Also, name a product where Microsoft charges outrageous fees for underlying >>> code? .NET is required to run Windows so it is core technology and most of >>> the code base has been released to the public. >> >>> Java, BTW, is solely owned by Sun. What other technology is proposed for >>> creating UIs? >> >>> Alan >> >>> Alan Churchill >>> Savian >>> www.savian.net >>> Office: (719) 687-5954 >>> Cell: (719) 310-4870 >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of >>> xlr82sas >>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:22 PM >>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R >> >>> On Mar 4, 11:01 am, stringplaye...(a)YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote: >>>> --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> wrote: >> >>>>> From: Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> >>>>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R >>>>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >>>>> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:55 AM Three little points: >> >>>>> 1) >>>>> Dale: >>>>> You're not really taking exception; I wrote: >>>>>>> that's why the R interface in in IML; OTHER PARTS OF SAS don't >>>>>>> have any data type that loosely corresponds to an R frame. >>>>> In other words, I agree that an R frame and a SAS data set are very >>>>> similar; it's just that only IML has any facilities for manipulating >>>>> SAS data sets as entities. (Unless perhaps you count the table >>>>> processing language). >> >>>> Jonathan, >> >>>> Can you elaborate on the facilities in IML for manipulating data sets >>>> as entities. I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument. >> >>>> Also, why must a SAS data set be mapped into an R data frame as an >>>> entity? >> >>>> Dale >> >>>> --------------------------------------- >>>> Dale McLerran >>>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >>>> mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org >>>> Ph: (206) 667-2926 >>>> Fax: (206) 667-5977 >>>> ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Hi Sas-Lers, >> >>> Proc matrix was part of base SAS and had a couple of nice properties on >>> big IBM mainframes. >> >>> 1. It had limited but useful 128bit numeric capabilites(way ahead >>> of its time) >>> 2. It used IBM's separate 'hardware vector engine' for fast >>> parallel vector operations (way ahead of its time) >> >>> SOAPBOX ON: >> >>> I made heavy use of 'proc matrix' and when SAS decided to rip it out of >>> base and charge very high fees for large two sided 8 way mainframes, my >>> management was not pleased. >> >>> SAS did provide a translator from Matrix to IML. >> >>> Here is what scares me at SAS: >> >>> 1. It looks like Enterprise Guide is the window to future SAS and >>> SAS_SAP. Also it looks like EG is somehow in bed with Microsoft's >>> proprietary .NET. Suppose Microsoft comes out with a Starship Enterprise >>> Version of .NET and decides to charge $500,000 dollars for Startship >>> Enterprise .NET. SAS is also prety good at playing this game. >> >>> 2. I worry about EG as a poison pill for programmers and companies. >>> Suppose programmers get sucked into the givaway EG. SAS throws in IOM, >>> metadata servers, stored processes, data architechure tools .. low cost at >>> first. Then comes the 'proc matrix' hammer and programmers and companies >>> have to pony up with massive spending increases or massive reprogramming to >>> move away from SAS-SAP. For instance if the once free components of EG, like >>> proc matrix, are now enterprise versions at extra cost. >> >>> I think EG should reflect the future costs now. It should be priced at >>> least 2x Windows Base SAS + SAS-Connect. Companies need to take a close look >>> at future IT costs and SAS's revenue strategy with respect to EG. Just look >>> at the costs asssociated with SAP. I also don't like it when SAS gives away >>> 'ODS GRAHICS' and then charges for it later. I know this in not strickly >>> bait and switch, but it smells. >> >>> I also find it very hypocritical for SAS to complain openly about an >>> inefficient interface to Oracle, when SAS does not even have a silient ODBC >>> product. >> >>> SOAPBOX OFF:- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I am not a lawyer but the details of licenses and contracts is in the > fine print. > > SUN Java -- GNU GPLv2 License > I believe Java is licensed under popular GNU GPLv2 terms. > Everything associated Java language, Java class libraries .... is open > Code isolation is required, my drop downs are ok because I do not > interact with R, perl or Java with > changes at JAVA source code level. > I don't think you can make changes to Java code and stick it in your > software and charge > $500,000 dollars. > > Microsoft .NET is under the Apache license. > Apache license: it allows use of the source code for the development > of proprietary software as well as free and open source software. > Apache is preferred by coporations because it imposes few restriction > on source code usage. This is why SAS uses .NET instead of Java. > > It has nothing to do with software quality. > I don't think everthing is open in .NET, ie certain key stacks - > beyond the scope of my knowledge. > As far as windows 'open source' minimally it would be nice if > Microsoft made available the source > code for all the crtical APIs, like windows explorer. > I think there are even more issues with C# and its relation to .NET. > (Microsoft charging for C##) > I don't see why a company cant develop an Enterprise .NET(usng .NET > code) along with C## and charge for it. > > SOAPBOX ON: > > I couple of lines in a license or contract/license can make all the > difference. > > Microsoft is where it is because of a few lines in a contract/ > license with IBM that allowed MS to develop the MS-DOS > operating system. There used to be an IBM-DOS and a MS-DOS. What > microsoft did was put some horrible GUI on 16bit DOS > and sucker the public into using it. With the GUI as an anchor > microsoft developed inferior MS-WORD(Wordperfect was much beter) > and excel(lotus was better). SAS is now using the EG GUI to sucker > executives and bean counters to eliminating Windows and SAS-connect. > It's al about the almighty dollar. SAS seeks the SAP fortune, however > along with SAS-SAP comes a much lower quality SAS. > > SOAPBOX OFF: > > > > > > > > > SOAPBOX ON; > > Microsoft did change the .NET from a weaker 'Community License' to the > Appache license a couple of years ago. > Users often tend to be supecious of Microsoft because it does things > like issue fixes to operating systems like Vista and > then has the nerve to charge for Windows 7. > > Also Microsoft has the best lawyers in the business.
From: Arthur Tabachneck on 7 Mar 2010 14:17 Jack, I can't speak for Roger, of course, but I can provide one explanation. If one runs proc spell on a document that contains "sas", sas isn't found but sap is offered as an alternative. Try, e.g.,: filename temp temp; data _null_; file temp; informat sentence $100.; input sentence &; put sentence; cards; sas ; proc spell in=temp suggest; run; Art ---------- On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:31:56 -0800, Jack Hamilton <jfh(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG> wrote: >I'm not sure why you keep bringing up SAP. If I wanted an example of a company that takes good products and ruins them, I would choose Computer Associates or Symantec (primarily because they have general-purpose products that I'm familiar with, where SAP has a special purpose product I'm not familiar with). What is the point of the comparison with SAP? > > > >-- >Jack Hamilton >jfh(a)alumni.stanford.org >Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. > > >On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:36 pm, xlr82sas wrote: > >> On Mar 6, 10:12 am, j...(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG (Jack Hamilton) wrote: >>> The problem with .NET is that it restricts programs to being run on Windows. >>> >>> In theory, some programs could run on other platforms using Mono, but I'll believe that when SAS Institute gives us the Mac version of Enterprise Guide. >>> >>> -- >>> Jack Hamilton >>> j...(a)alumni.stanford.org >>> Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:19 pm, Alan Churchill wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Never going to happen on the .NET front and SAS was right to choose it (they >>>> should do more .NET, not less). >>> >>>> Also, name a product where Microsoft charges outrageous fees for underlying >>>> code? .NET is required to run Windows so it is core technology and most of >>>> the code base has been released to the public. >>> >>>> Java, BTW, is solely owned by Sun. What other technology is proposed for >>>> creating UIs? >>> >>>> Alan >>> >>>> Alan Churchill >>>> Savian >>>> www.savian.net >>>> Office: (719) 687-5954 >>>> Cell: (719) 310-4870 >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of >>>> xlr82sas >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:22 PM >>>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R >>> >>>> On Mar 4, 11:01 am, stringplaye...(a)YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote: >>>>> --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> wrote: >>> >>>>>> From: Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R >>>>>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >>>>>> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:55 AM Three little points: >>> >>>>>> 1) >>>>>> Dale: >>>>>> You're not really taking exception; I wrote: >>>>>>>> that's why the R interface in in IML; OTHER PARTS OF SAS don't >>>>>>>> have any data type that loosely corresponds to an R frame. >>>>>> In other words, I agree that an R frame and a SAS data set are very >>>>>> similar; it's just that only IML has any facilities for manipulating >>>>>> SAS data sets as entities. (Unless perhaps you count the table >>>>>> processing language). >>> >>>>> Jonathan, >>> >>>>> Can you elaborate on the facilities in IML for manipulating data sets >>>>> as entities. I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument. >>> >>>>> Also, why must a SAS data set be mapped into an R data frame as an >>>>> entity? >>> >>>>> Dale >>> >>>>> --------------------------------------- >>>>> Dale McLerran >>>>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >>>>> mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org >>>>> Ph: (206) 667-2926 >>>>> Fax: (206) 667-5977 >>>>> ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - >>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>>> Hi Sas-Lers, >>> >>>> Proc matrix was part of base SAS and had a couple of nice properties on >>>> big IBM mainframes. >>> >>>> 1. It had limited but useful 128bit numeric capabilites(way ahead >>>> of its time) >>>> 2. It used IBM's separate 'hardware vector engine' for fast >>>> parallel vector operations (way ahead of its time) >>> >>>> SOAPBOX ON: >>> >>>> I made heavy use of 'proc matrix' and when SAS decided to rip it out of >>>> base and charge very high fees for large two sided 8 way mainframes, my >>>> management was not pleased. >>> >>>> SAS did provide a translator from Matrix to IML. >>> >>>> Here is what scares me at SAS: >>> >>>> 1. It looks like Enterprise Guide is the window to future SAS and >>>> SAS_SAP. Also it looks like EG is somehow in bed with Microsoft's >>>> proprietary .NET. Suppose Microsoft comes out with a Starship Enterprise >>>> Version of .NET and decides to charge $500,000 dollars for Startship >>>> Enterprise .NET. SAS is also prety good at playing this game. >>> >>>> 2. I worry about EG as a poison pill for programmers and companies. >>>> Suppose programmers get sucked into the givaway EG. SAS throws in IOM, >>>> metadata servers, stored processes, data architechure tools .. low cost at >>>> first. Then comes the 'proc matrix' hammer and programmers and companies >>>> have to pony up with massive spending increases or massive reprogramming to >>>> move away from SAS-SAP. For instance if the once free components of EG, like >>>> proc matrix, are now enterprise versions at extra cost. >>> >>>> I think EG should reflect the future costs now. It should be priced at >>>> least 2x Windows Base SAS + SAS-Connect. Companies need to take a close look >>>> at future IT costs and SAS's revenue strategy with respect to EG. Just look >>>> at the costs asssociated with SAP. I also don't like it when SAS gives away >>>> 'ODS GRAHICS' and then charges for it later. I know this in not strickly >>>> bait and switch, but it smells. >>> >>>> I also find it very hypocritical for SAS to complain openly about an >>>> inefficient interface to Oracle, when SAS does not even have a silient ODBC >>>> product. >>> >>>> SOAPBOX OFF:- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> I am not a lawyer but the details of licenses and contracts is in the >> fine print. >> >> SUN Java -- GNU GPLv2 License >> I believe Java is licensed under popular GNU GPLv2 terms. >> Everything associated Java language, Java class libraries .... is open >> Code isolation is required, my drop downs are ok because I do not >> interact with R, perl or Java with >> changes at JAVA source code level. >> I don't think you can make changes to Java code and stick it in your >> software and charge >> $500,000 dollars. >> >> Microsoft .NET is under the Apache license. >> Apache license: it allows use of the source code for the development >> of proprietary software as well as free and open source software. >> Apache is preferred by coporations because it imposes few restriction >> on source code usage. This is why SAS uses .NET instead of Java. >> >> It has nothing to do with software quality. >> I don't think everthing is open in .NET, ie certain key stacks - >> beyond the scope of my knowledge. >> As far as windows 'open source' minimally it would be nice if >> Microsoft made available the source >> code for all the crtical APIs, like windows explorer. >> I think there are even more issues with C# and its relation to .NET. >> (Microsoft charging for C##) >> I don't see why a company cant develop an Enterprise .NET(usng .NET >> code) along with C## and charge for it. >> >> SOAPBOX ON: >> >> I couple of lines in a license or contract/license can make all the >> difference. >> >> Microsoft is where it is because of a few lines in a contract/ >> license with IBM that allowed MS to develop the MS-DOS >> operating system. There used to be an IBM-DOS and a MS-DOS. What >> microsoft did was put some horrible GUI on 16bit DOS >> and sucker the public into using it. With the GUI as an anchor >> microsoft developed inferior MS-WORD(Wordperfect was much beter) >> and excel(lotus was better). SAS is now using the EG GUI to sucker >> executives and bean counters to eliminating Windows and SAS-connect. >> It's al about the almighty dollar. SAS seeks the SAP fortune, however >> along with SAS-SAP comes a much lower quality SAS. >> >> SOAPBOX OFF: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> SOAPBOX ON; >> >> Microsoft did change the .NET from a weaker 'Community License' to the >> Appache license a couple of years ago. >> Users often tend to be supecious of Microsoft because it does things >> like issue fixes to operating systems like Vista and >> then has the nerve to charge for Windows 7. >> >> Also Microsoft has the best lawyers in the business.
From: xlr82sas on 7 Mar 2010 15:17
On Mar 7, 10:31 am, j...(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > I'm not sure why you keep bringing up SAP. If I wanted an example of a company that takes good products and ruins them, I would choose Computer Associates or Symantec (primarily because they have general-purpose products that I'm familiar with, where SAP has a special purpose product I'm not familiar with). What is the point of the comparison with SAP? > > -- > Jack Hamilton > j...(a)alumni.stanford.org > Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:36 pm, xlr82sas wrote: > > > > > On Mar 6, 10:12 am, j...(a)STANFORDALUMNI.ORG (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > >> The problem with .NET is that it restricts programs to being run on Windows. > > >> In theory, some programs could run on other platforms using Mono, but I'll believe that when SAS Institute gives us the Mac version of Enterprise Guide. > > >> -- > >> Jack Hamilton > >> j...(a)alumni.stanford.org > >> Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. > > >> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:19 pm, Alan Churchill wrote: > > >>> Never going to happen on the .NET front and SAS was right to choose it (they > >>> should do more .NET, not less). > > >>> Also, name a product where Microsoft charges outrageous fees for underlying > >>> code? .NET is required to run Windows so it is core technology and most of > >>> the code base has been released to the public. > > >>> Java, BTW, is solely owned by Sun. What other technology is proposed for > >>> creating UIs? > > >>> Alan > > >>> Alan Churchill > >>> Savian > >>>www.savian.net > >>> Office: (719) 687-5954 > >>> Cell: (719) 310-4870 > > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of > >>> xlr82sas > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:22 PM > >>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > >>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R > > >>> On Mar 4, 11:01 am, stringplaye...(a)YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote: > >>>> --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> wrote: > > >>>>> From: Jonathan Goldberg <jgoldb...(a)BIOMEDSYS.COM> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Why SAS programmers need to be aware of perl and R > >>>>> To: SA...(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > >>>>> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:55 AM Three little points: > > >>>>> 1) > >>>>> Dale: > >>>>> You're not really taking exception; I wrote: > >>>>>>> that's why the R interface in in IML; OTHER PARTS OF SAS don't > >>>>>>> have any data type that loosely corresponds to an R frame. > >>>>> In other words, I agree that an R frame and a SAS data set are very > >>>>> similar; it's just that only IML has any facilities for manipulating > >>>>> SAS data sets as entities. (Unless perhaps you count the table > >>>>> processing language). > > >>>> Jonathan, > > >>>> Can you elaborate on the facilities in IML for manipulating data sets > >>>> as entities. I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument. > > >>>> Also, why must a SAS data set be mapped into an R data frame as an > >>>> entity? > > >>>> Dale > > >>>> --------------------------------------- > >>>> Dale McLerran > >>>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > >>>> mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org > >>>> Ph: (206) 667-2926 > >>>> Fax: (206) 667-5977 > >>>> ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Hi Sas-Lers, > > >>> Proc matrix was part of base SAS and had a couple of nice properties on > >>> big IBM mainframes. > > >>> 1. It had limited but useful 128bit numeric capabilites(way ahead > >>> of its time) > >>> 2. It used IBM's separate 'hardware vector engine' for fast > >>> parallel vector operations (way ahead of its time) > > >>> SOAPBOX ON: > > >>> I made heavy use of 'proc matrix' and when SAS decided to rip it out of > >>> base and charge very high fees for large two sided 8 way mainframes, my > >>> management was not pleased. > > >>> SAS did provide a translator from Matrix to IML. > > >>> Here is what scares me at SAS: > > >>> 1. It looks like Enterprise Guide is the window to future SAS and > >>> SAS_SAP. Also it looks like EG is somehow in bed with Microsoft's > >>> proprietary .NET. Suppose Microsoft comes out with a Starship Enterprise > >>> Version of .NET and decides to charge $500,000 dollars for Startship > >>> Enterprise .NET. SAS is also prety good at playing this game. > > >>> 2. I worry about EG as a poison pill for programmers and companies. > >>> Suppose programmers get sucked into the givaway EG. SAS throws in IOM, > >>> metadata servers, stored processes, data architechure tools .. low cost at > >>> first. Then comes the 'proc matrix' hammer and programmers and companies > >>> have to pony up with massive spending increases or massive reprogramming to > >>> move away from SAS-SAP. For instance if the once free components of EG, like > >>> proc matrix, are now enterprise versions at extra cost. > > >>> I think EG should reflect the future costs now. It should be priced at > >>> least 2x Windows Base SAS + SAS-Connect. Companies need to take a close look > >>> at future IT costs and SAS's revenue strategy with respect to EG. Just look > >>> at the costs asssociated with SAP. I also don't like it when SAS gives away > >>> 'ODS GRAHICS' and then charges for it later. I know this in not strickly > >>> bait and switch, but it smells. > > >>> I also find it very hypocritical for SAS to complain openly about an > >>> inefficient interface to Oracle, when SAS does not even have a silient ODBC > >>> product. > > >>> SOAPBOX OFF:- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I am not a lawyer but the details of licenses and contracts is in the > > fine print. > > > SUN Java -- GNU GPLv2 License > > I believe Java is licensed under popular GNU GPLv2 terms. > > Everything associated Java language, Java class libraries .... is open > > Code isolation is required, my drop downs are ok because I do not > > interact with R, perl or Java with > > changes at JAVA source code level. > > I don't think you can make changes to Java code and stick it in your > > software and charge > > $500,000 dollars. > > > Microsoft .NET is under the Apache license. > > Apache license: it allows use of the source code for the development > > of proprietary software as well as free and open source software. > > Apache is preferred by coporations because it imposes few restriction > > on source code usage. This is why SAS uses .NET instead of Java. > > > It has nothing to do with software quality. > > I don't think everthing is open in .NET, ie certain key stacks - > > beyond the scope of my knowledge. > > As far as windows 'open source' minimally it would be nice if > > Microsoft made available the source > > code for all the crtical APIs, like windows explorer. > > I think there are even more issues with C# and its relation to .NET. > > (Microsoft charging for C##) > > I don't see why a company cant develop an Enterprise .NET(usng .NET > > code) along with C## and charge for it. > > > SOAPBOX ON: > > > I couple of lines in a license or contract/license can make all the > > difference. > > > Microsoft is where it is because of a few lines in a contract/ > > license with IBM that allowed MS to develop the MS-DOS > > operating system. There used to be an IBM-DOS and a MS-DOS. What > > microsoft did was put some horrible GUI on 16bit DOS > > and sucker the public into using it. With the GUI as an anchor > > microsoft developed inferior MS-WORD(Wordperfect was much beter) > > and excel(lotus was better). SAS is now using the EG GUI to sucker > > executives and bean counters to eliminating Windows and SAS-connect. > > It's al about the almighty dollar. SAS seeks the SAP fortune, however > > along with SAS-SAP comes a much lower quality SAS. > > > SOAPBOX OFF: > > > SOAPBOX ON; > > > Microsoft did change the .NET from a weaker 'Community License' to the > > Appache license a couple of years ago. > > Users often tend to be supecious of Microsoft because it does things > > like issue fixes to operating systems like Vista and > > then has the nerve to charge for Windows 7. > > > Also Microsoft has the best lawyers in the business.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi SAS-Lers, The devil is in the details I know that some companies are working on products that will read and more importantly write SAS datasets without SAS. Also I know that at least one product will fail to work after June of this year. I think these companies plan on selling the software. I hope these companies will consider the more restrictive GPLv2 license instead of the Appache license and publish all the source code. Also it would be nice if all the source code (C#, .NET ...) was made available, as a gesture to the SAS community. GPLv2(SUN JAVA - last time I looked) You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in your program. ============================================================================================================================= As for word perfect, I have had several users who prefer the command line stucture of WP. Also there are major US govermental agencies still using WP. ============================================================================================================================== As for SAP. EG seems to be a window to products that integrate tools for managing ans enterprises. I am not a SAP expert but some of these SAS tools remind me of SAP. Only SAS can answer the SAP question. The document stating the stategic direction for EG would be nice. |