<>
I agree with Roy's concern for brevity. Indeed, to produce an
estimation table in -estout-, all you need is
eststo clear
eststo: reg ....
eststo: reg (or whatever)
...
esttab using output.file
and the amount of help needed to describe that basic usage is quite
minimal. Naturally, just as with the latest revision of -outreg2-,
doing something fancier requires some more reading, What I was
referring to as very helpful IMHO is the extensive web-based
documentation for -estout-, which I find very useful myself when
trying to do some of the more complex tasks often required to produce
a table 'just so'.
Kit
PS> Apple have improved in that regard: the current Macintosh line
comes with zero manuals!
Kit Baum | Boston College Economics and DIW Berlin | http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html
An Introduction to Stata Programming | http://www.stata-press.com/books/isp.html
An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata | http://www.stata-press.com/books/imeus.html
On Mar 16, 2009, at 02:33 , Roy wrote:
A great thing about John Gallup's original -outreg- is that
it does not need extensive documentation to run. Brevity is a
virtue in this case. The original Macintosh (computer) once
boasted that it came with a single manual.
IMHO, the reverse can also be true.
SAS is extremely well-documented. I don't know any statistical
softwarethat comes with more documentations. All that documentations
serves as a post hoc dressing (i.e. bandaid) for the ad hoc syntax
(which is understandable, since SAS was one of the earliest to
appear).
Stata is much better designed with subsequent programming knowhow
built into it (plus the benefit of whoever did the writing).
As for myself, I would like Stata to keep running like a Stata,
which is to say without the need for extensive documentation, and
I think many people would agree with me on this one.
*
* 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/
