[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: AW: RE: two steps of writting commands |

Date |
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:08:55 +0100 |

<> Mandy would probably find a wealth of information on her subject if she bought http://www.stata-press.com/books/wdaus.html... HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Nick Cox Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009 15:04 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: st: RE: two steps of writting commands I don't have data on what most people do. In any case, what's best is to work out what's best for you, given an overall goal of reproducible research. I imagine however that many users write messy code and then clean up afterwards (if at all). What's dominant for me with do files is sorting out not any issue of ugliness, but outright syntax mistakes, digressions, dead ends and repetitions. But equally many people have trained themselves to write do files that are clean from the outset and to correct immediately any problem as it arises. It's a good route to take but it requires more discipline. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Mandy fu I 'm curious about the steps used to write do files. I find usually I need to do two main steps: --------------------------------- First, write the original commands, check the outputs, test for various models, compare the results, select some models and report the results. This is like the draft version of commands. Second, organize and edit the original commands for future use or audit:simplify the commands(for example,using programming commands to substitute similar commands) , delete the redundant ones, make the commands neat. -------------------------------- When working with step 1, my goal is to get the job done. Sometimes I cannot think too much about how ugly the commands look like. This is why I need the second step to polish what I get from step 1. I was wondering if I sould combine these two steps together. Should I take consideration of getting the commands simpler, more concise,and more transparent in step 1 so that I don't need step 2 at all? Is the two-step way usual or most people don't need the second step? * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: two steps of writting commands***From:*Mandy fu <mandy.fu1@gmail.com>

**st: RE: two steps of writting commands***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: two steps of writting commands** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Stanard Error for Difference in Difference cross-tabulation** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: two steps of writting commands** - Next by thread:
**st: Re: How does -kwallis2- compute adjusted p-values for significance?** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |