Hi,
I am unsure this is the right place for this, but I am just back from the SAS Forum in Sydney and am all wound up again. So I am curious to see what you guys think.
=>What on earth pushes sas to want programmers to use EG?
=>How can they believe that populations as different as end users and coders have similar needs and should use the same tool?
EG's code window is cramped, and it doesn't even have line numbers for goodness' sake! How am I supposed to efficiently fit my 1000- or 2000- lines programs in that tiny crippled space?
While it is very nice to be able to see a process flow, and EG does offer some pluses, it has many shortcomings over the DMS, which is not that great to start with.
To name some of the most obvious that came to mind, in no particular order (this might have marginally improved in the latest version of EG I haven't kept track):
-Data step debugger disabled (it should be overhauled instead)
-Either windows are way too small (especially table-browsing, code panes) due to more interface clutter, or impractical toggling of window size with ctrl-M
-Dataset-browsing pane: cannot run WHERE clauses or run SHOW command or hide/unhide variables or display one record at a time.
-Cannot toggle easily from 'Display Labels' to 'Display Column Names' (need to go to General Options) or change variable format
-Dataset Properties window is not resizeable and is tiny and does not indicate if dataset is sorted or what the index is or number of lines and columns or compression or date
-Cannot copy column names from properties/columns dialog (Drag'n'Drop would be even better)
-Library property does not indicate path
-No line numbering in code window
-Log window full of EG-related garbage: one-line statement submitted results in a 1-page log.
-Catalogs are hidden
-Cannot configure keys
-Server list pane not split explorer-like (libraries | tables)
-No access to OS (call system, x, %sysexec, pipes, named pipes) (so no MPconnect piping optimisation)
-and on and on
=>Why cripple an already limited coding interface? How can these shortcomings be seen as acceptable? Do sas Institute developpers use EG?
In the 2009 sasware ballot (I haven't looked at the 2010 one, nor have I bothered to check whether any of the requested features have been implemented), 3 of the top 4 *overall* items relate to application development and debugging:
1- assign line numbers to code seen in a log generated by a macro in order to correlate with any LINE:COL messages given at the bottom of a DATA Step
3- provide an option that enables you to turn off or on certain notes that are written to the SAS log; for example, notes about data set compression, invalid data, or invalid argument to a function
4- provide the functionality to stop a SAS process in interactive mode exactly as the ERRORABEND option stops a process in batch mode - immediately stop the process upon error, produce a log, and not terminate the session
How that kind of wishes fits with EG I can't imagine.
On the other hand, the DMS is outdated too, lacks many features users have requested for years (like the ballot's macro-line log-numbering/debugging), and also lacks tools other IDEs have had for many years, like good color coding, predictive typing, drag and drop debugging, source code management (both to retrieve older version of the code and to share code), etc.
So I agree the DMS needs to go, and why not a java applet connected to a server if that is the way sas wants things to go. But not an applet with even fewer features than the poor old DMS!
My opinion is that the "SAS Enterprise IDE" java interface is long overdue, that coders need it badly, and that sas is on the wrong track trying to push them to use EG. I might not be alone thinking that seeing that sas is still pushing many years later.
=>What do you think?
So 4 sets of questions here (including for sas). I am curious to see comments/reactions. Thanks.