A further example of software pricing dynamics is the complete lack of awareness of WPS , a UK based software which is basically a base SAS clone with all the features of SAS ( coding read ,write and data read /write) and priced only at 660$ per desktop and 1400$ for server licenses ..very very cheap compared to SAS Base..and it has a Bridge to R for higher level statistics...
You would think a corporate user would not have any hesitation to switch to a clone software priced at 10 % ... yet there are hardly any takers for it..........in the federal government... :)) people worried about their government's spending should use the new website http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/contact it is supposed to chronicle this and it would be a good test and control for the Web 2.0 initiatives.. On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Frank E Harrell Jr < f.harr...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > spam me wrote: > >> I've actually used AHRQ's software to create Inpatient Quality Indicator >> reports. I can confirm pretty much what we already know; it is >> inefficient. >> Running on about 1.8 - 2 million cases, it would take just about a whole >> day >> to run the entire process from start to finish. That isn't all processing >> time and includes some time for the analyst to check results between >> substeps, but I still knew that my day was full when I was working on IQI >> reports. >> >> >> >> To be fair though, there are a lot of other factors (beside efficiency >> considerations) that go into AHRQ's program design. First, there are a >> lot >> of changes to that software every year. In some cases it is easier and >> less >> error prone to hardcode a few points in the data so that it is blatantly >> obvious what to change next year should another analyst need to do so. >> Second, >> the organizations that use this software often require transparency and >> may >> not have high level programmers on staff. Writing code so that it is >> accessible, editable, and interpretable by intermediate level programmers >> or >> analysts is a plus. Third, given that IQI reports are often produced on a >> yearly basis, there's no real need to sacrifice clarity, etc. for >> efficiency >> - you're only doing this process once a year. >> >> >> >> There are other points that could be made, but the main idea is I don't >> think it's fair to hold this software up, out of context, as an example of >> SAS's (or even AHRQs) inefficiencies. I agree that SAS syntax is nowhere >> near as elegant or as powerful as R from a programming standpoint, that's >> why after 7 years of using SAS I switched to R. But comparing the two at >> that level is like a racing a Ferrari and a Bentley to see which is the >> better car. >> > > Dear Anonymous, > > Nice points. I would just add that it would be better if > government-sponsored projects would result in software that could be run > without expensive licenses. > > Thanks > Frank > > >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> > > -- > Frank E Harrell Jr Professor and Chair School of Medicine > Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University > > ______________________________________________ > 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. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ 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.
