Three comments
I actually think you can write worse code in R than in SAS: more tools = more
scope for innovatively bad ideas. The ability to write bad code should not
damm
a language.
I found almost all of the "improvements" to the multi-line SAS recode to be
regressions, both the SAS and the S suggestions.
a. Everyone, even those of you with no SAS backround whatsoever,
immediately
understood the code. Most of the replacements are obscure. Compilers are very
good these days and computers are fast, fewer typed characters != better.
b. If I were writing the S code for such an application, it would look much
the same. I worked as a programmer in medical research for several years, and
one of the things that moved me on to graduate studies in statistics was the
realization that doing my best work meant being as UN-clever as possible in my
code.
Frank's comments imply that he was reading SAS macro code at the moment of
peak frustration. And if you want to criticise SAS code, this is the place to
look. SAS macro started out as some simple expansions, then got added on to,
then added on again, and again, and .... with no overall blueprint. It is
much
like the farmhouse of some neighbors of mine growing up: 4 different expansions
in 4 eras, and no overall guiding plan. The interior layout was "interesting"
to say the least. I was once a bona fide SAS 'wizard' (and Frank was much
better
than me), and I can't read the stuff without grinding my teeth.
S was once headed down the same road. One of the best things ever with the
language was documented in the blue book "The New S Language", where Becker et
al had the wisdom to scrap the macro processor.
Terry Therneau
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
