RE: st: RE: list in stata8

[Buzz Burhans <wsb2@cornell.edu>]

At 08:12 AM 2/26/03 -0600, you wrote:
> As I suggested previously - I am saddened to see that Stata is being driven
> more and more towards accommodating  cosmetics rather than statistics. I
> assume this is a market-driven neccessity and done with reluctance by Stata
> Corp.
IMHO, this is very unfair.

The new Stata 8 is substantively enhanced in functionality, whether or not 
it comes along with each of our various preferences still intact.  The 
discussion of "list' reveals substantial differences of opinion regarding 
preferred default behavior, and it appears that some of the actual improved 
functionality is offset, at least for now in selcted circumstances, by 
differences in speed. Where old functionality or ease of use have been 
comprimised, sometimes there are workarounds (perhaps at some point "list" 
will have user specified default preference settings or somthing like 
that), other times one has to learn to live with the changes if one wants 
to capture the enhancements.

This discussion of "list" does not in any way negate that the latest 
version of Stata is functionally improved in many ways.Having been around 
software upgrades for probably too many years, one comes to realize that 
every update of favorite software brings a measure of discomfort as what 
was customary is replaced. I, for instance, am grateful for other speed 
enhancements in Stata 8 that make my use of gllamm fast enough in Stata 8 
to be a feasible alternative to having to use yet another different 
software program at least some of the time.  It is these kinds of 
substantive improvements that make upgrading Stata worthwhile.

Even when some of the changes to things like the GUI are "cosmetic", they 
presumably contribute to the survivability and viability of Stata in the 
marketplace.  That viability is important to me, because I don't want to 
work on a program that is going to become obsolete, or alternatively, 
prohibitively expensive because it has only a limited user base.  I suspect 
that some of the "cosmetic" changes address the marketability of Stata, and 
I support those efforts even if I don't use them.  When I was an graduate 
student at Cornell basic graduate level stats was taught using a much less 
powerful program that was nonetheless simpler to use at that point because 
it had a user friendly GUI.  It was the first program I bought. It would be 
better for most of us Stata afficiandos if it had been Stata perhaps, and 
"cosmetic" improvements are integral to what makes a program both 
attractive and viable in the long run.

Finally, I am a bit concerned that the tenor of the discussion is more 
negative than the Stata Corp people deserve.  There will always be offsets 
in "comfort" when upgrading; I would hope that the tenor of the discussion 
would not make Stata hesitant to plowing forward with new improvements 
because for fear of the risks of disturbing some of us as we loose our 
comfort zones.  For some of us, the "comfort zone" offsets in this release 
are minor compared to the gains in functionality. I for instance, would 
like them to keep focusing on developing the capacity for heirarchical 
models...the issues surrounding "list" pale for me compared to the need for 
stronger hierarchical modeling capabilities. Stata Corp is amazingly 
responsive to user input...I would hope that where we as users have 
legitimate critical inputs we would do it in a positive way that recognizes 
Stata's sensitivity to our voices.

Sorry for the length, but the tenor of the criticism has at times been 
disconcerting, even if the substance of it has been valid.

Buzz Burhans





*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/