Syntax color code issues
Locked
12
12
 
|
I've used SPSS for about 30 years, and the PC version since it came out. Always use syntax and wonder why it took SPSS so long to provide color coding of syntax in the editor. Now that they have there are a few problems. If you know the history of the PC version then you probably know that the syntax parser used short cuts to fit the program on the PC. As a result most commands only require three characters. For example: exe. * is the same as. execute. and both work fine. Over the years I've learned to abbreviate most of my syntax and use my own style. Well unfortunately the new syntax highlighting only works with the full keyword. Why? If I type: rename variables (rk01 to rk20 = rki01 to rki20). I get color coding but ren var (rk01 to rk20 = rki01 to rki20). doesn't. So I'm forced to either give up years of abbreviation style and habit, or lose color coding. Again, why? Also, here is a bug: get data /type = ODBC /CONNECT = 'DSN=MS Access Database;DBQ=H:\Groups\MHSA WET\Recovery Knowledge '+ 'Inventory.mdb;DriverId=25;FIL=MS Access;MaxBufferSize=2048;PageTimeout=5;' /SQL = 'SELECT RK01, RK02, RK03, RK04, RK05, RK06, RK07, RK08, RK09, RK10, RK11,' ' RK12, RK13, RK14, RK15, RK16, RK17, RK18, RK19, RK20, Site, Division, ' ' Wave, SiteNum ' 'FROM `Raw RKI`' /assumedstrwidth = 20. cache. As pasted by the GUI this code is highlighted RED as an error for "get data" and "SQL" although it runs without a problem. If you put the equal sign on the next line, the red turns to green, but execute fine. get data /type = ODBC /CONNECT = 'DSN=MS Access Database;DBQ=H:\Groups\MHSA WET\Recovery Knowledge '+ 'Inventory.mdb;DriverId=25;FIL=MS Access;MaxBufferSize=2048;PageTimeout=5;' /SQL = 'SELECT RK01, RK02, RK03, RK04, RK05, RK06, RK07, RK08, RK09, RK10, RK11,' ' RK12, RK13, RK14, RK15, RK16, RK17, RK18, RK19, RK20, Site, Division, ' ' Wave, SiteNum ' 'FROM `Raw RKI`' /assumedstrwidth = 20. cache. An odd bug. Harold Baize Butte County Department of Behavioral Health |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
> and both work fine. Over the years I've learned to abbreviate most of my
> syntax and use my own style. Well unfortunately the new syntax > highlighting > only works with the full keyword. I've noticed the same during beta testing and reported it. Unfortunately, it's not solved. Francien ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
The auto-complete feature keeps the keystroke count down but my
readability score up :) On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Francien Berndsen <[hidden email]> wrote: >> and both work fine. Over the years I've learned to abbreviate most of my >> syntax and use my own style. Well unfortunately the new syntax >> highlighting >> only works with the full keyword. > > I've noticed the same during beta testing and reported it. Unfortunately, > it's not solved. > > Francien > > ===================== > To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to > [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the > command. To leave the list, send the command > SIGNOFF SPSSX-L > For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command > INFO REFCARD > ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc.
|
|
|
I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input.
The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. Jason Burke wrote: > > The auto-complete feature keeps the keystroke count down but my > readability score up :) > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Francien Berndsen <[hidden email]> > wrote: >>> and both work fine. Over the years I've learned to abbreviate most of my >>> syntax and use my own style. Well unfortunately the new syntax >>> highlighting >>> only works with the full keyword. >> >> I've noticed the same during beta testing and reported it. Unfortunately, >> it's not solved. >> >> Francien >> >> ===================== >> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to >> [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the >> command. To leave the list, send the command >> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L >> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command >> INFO REFCARD >> > > ===================== > To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to > [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the > command. To leave the list, send the command > SIGNOFF SPSSX-L > For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command > INFO REFCARD > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20937737.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc.
My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health <quote author="Weeks, Kyle"> I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. kweeks@spss.com www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. |
|
|
Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits.
I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
Kyle,
I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
Jim, unfortunately, certain things get lost in email like tone and intent. I was not trying to be dimissive or condescending in any way. I was simply trying to give an explanation of certian behavior and trying to clarify why certain things are done. I used SPSS for years before joining the company and continue to use the software daily. I also speak with many customers both on and off the list. We do take changes and the impact they have on users very seriously.
My offers to beta test and/or serve on the customer advisory board were sincere. Some of our best customer insight and feedback comes from customers who may be unhappy with certain issues. Regards. Kyle ________________________________ From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ====================To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
Agreed. Who here has ever typed
"FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=var /ORDER= ANALYSIS ." instead of "freq var" when writing syntax? I learned SPSS using abbreviated syntax and never used the GUI (even to paste syntax) until I had to teach SPSS to others, and even then, I tried to get them to move to syntax as soon as possible because doing recodes and such with GUI is a recipe for disaster. Although recently, we're having so many problems with 16 and 17 that we're probably going to move over to Stata next year, if we can get Brandeis go for it. Graham Wright Senior Research Analyst Brandeis University ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Mr. CTR Whanger" <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:06:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
I obviously have a biased opinion, but I fail to see that anything Kyle Weeks said in this thread could be construed as arrogant, condescending, or dismissive.
-----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
Hmm. The original poster's complaint was that the syntax editor color
coding in V17 did not accommodate an undocumented, unsupported, idiosyncratic aspect of SPSS syntax that hearkened back to some well-outdated release. I too avail myself of such shortcuts -- and it might be nice in a future release to allow the user to customize the coloring behavior -- but I fail to see why SPSS should be expected to support such uses of its product. The color coding and auto-complete features may, of course, be turned off, which I find useful when looking at old or idiosyncratic syntax. Further, I think it's inaccurate to characterize Kyle's frequently posted invitation to provide feedback to SPSS (of which I have availed myself) as arrogant or dismissive. SPSS is an imperfect tool, but a useful one -- and it's not the only tool that I use -- but there are procedures in place for addressing problems and concerns. I hope we can avoid turning this list into a complaint line. Respectfully, Dan R Whanger, J. Mr. CTR wrote: > Kyle, > > I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, > typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to > reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of > software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in > functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed > and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous > notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere > within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one > to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of > understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern > for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for > a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive > attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. > > Regards, > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Weeks, Kyle > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues > > Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? > Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This > would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as > your time permits. > > I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as > well. If you are interest please let me know. > > Regards. > > Kyle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > HBaize > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues > > Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of > "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have > felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS > inc. > > My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that > all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color > coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the > paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in > myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for > learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you > don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock > key. > > In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If > I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the > keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't > the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to > revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. > Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I > type: > > cor var=varone vartwo. > > The GUI would paste: > > CORRELATIONS > /VARIABLES=varone vartwo > /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG > /MISSING=PAIRWISE. > > I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first > one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the > verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the > syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is > ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be > shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what > basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is > the evidence? > > >>> The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>> really >>> > not best practice.<< > > The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the > three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent > features across procedures. > > All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to > program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If > you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to > use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would > not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or > the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real > syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files > just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. > > Harold R. Baize, PhD > Evaluations > Butte County Behavioral Health > > > I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was > a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great > deal of customer input. > > The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in > which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The > abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not > best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, > it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. > > Regards. > > Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. > Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. > [hidden email] > www.spss.com > SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive > analytics. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > HBaize > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues > > I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but > logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS > should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump > ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. > > > > -- > > > -- Daniel Robertson Senior Research and Planning Associate Institutional Research and Planning Cornell University / irp.cornell.edu ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
In reply to this post by Weeks, Kyle
Kyle,
Your comment about "best practice" to a customer was either condescending or ill-informed, even if interpreted generously. Either you were explaining to an obviously experienced user that he was not doing things "right" or you were not aware of the illogic inherent in SPSS's rationale for excluding abbreviated syntax. There is no reason it could not have been included. I suspect it was decided that the amount of work required to include abbreviated syntax in the color coding change was not worth the effort. Implicit in this decision was a willingness to exclude long standing SPSS users from easily using their years and years of existing syntax with the new color coding function. If SPSS wants to maintain credibility with their customers, they should at the very least acknowledge the decisions that were made and the implications that were deemed acceptable. Additionally, although a customer advisory board can substantively inform an analysis of potential implications of changes, it does not substitute for forethought exercised by programmers, software designers, and product managers more familiar with the inner workings of the old and new software. Also, your reply noticeably avoided addressing or even acknowledging the obvious arrogance that has been displayed on this LIST by SPSS employees relative to changes in functionality. Quite frankly I have been shocked by it. A problem needs to be recognized before it can be changed; that goes for organizational norms as well as software. Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: Weeks, Kyle [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:26 PM To: Whanger, J. Mr. CTR; [hidden email] Subject: RE: Re: Syntax color code issues Jim, unfortunately, certain things get lost in email like tone and intent. I was not trying to be dimissive or condescending in any way. I was simply trying to give an explanation of certian behavior and trying to clarify why certain things are done. I used SPSS for years before joining the company and continue to use the software daily. I also speak with many customers both on and off the list. We do take changes and the impact they have on users very seriously. My offers to beta test and/or serve on the customer advisory board were sincere. Some of our best customer insight and feedback comes from customers who may be unhappy with certain issues. Regards. Kyle ________________________________ From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ====================To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Oliver, Richard
I am of the same opinion than Richard, but misunderstandings happen. Let's
not make a big thing out of this. Jim Whanger would surely make valuable contributions as a beta tester, and Kyle is right to invite him for that role. Hector -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Oliver, Richard Sent: 10 December 2008 17:59 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I obviously have a biased opinion, but I fail to see that anything Kyle Weeks said in this thread could be construed as arrogant, condescending, or dismissive. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
In reply to this post by Oliver, Richard
I have had the opportunity to beta test SPSS for a number of years, to
include V17, as well as be a part of the CAB and find Kyle and the development staff to be very accepting of any and all comments, both positive and negative. While they may or may not consider my input as to design issues they generally offer informative feedback so as to understand their reaction. I did not find Kyle's words to be anything other than an opinion, and in no way meant to be critical, etc. Further, the offering to be on the CAB is sincere and I strongly encourage its participation. WMB Statistical Services ============ mailto: [hidden email] http:\\home.earthlink.net\~info.statman ============ -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD
Will
Statistical Services ============ info.statman@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~z_statman/ ============ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
In this case I fail to see how the new syntax editor impacts existing
customers in any negative way. Truncated syntax still runs. I find it quite useful that it echoes back errors immediately into the same window that I'm using for my syntax rather than having to go inspect the output. All in all, I think that the benefits of the new syntax editor outweigh its deficiencies. And I use UIs to paste syntax all the time. I'm not stupid, I'm efficient ;-) ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
In reply to this post by Weeks, Kyle
On a related but, granted, tangential note, I don't see version one of the
process below as being an example of best practice. 'Best practice' for most of us who have to share our work means explicit documentation of our processes. This is particularly true of those of us who cut their teeth on COBOL, etc. which often required substantial internal documentation. Best practice should include a consideration of those who follow behind you; clients, consumers, or colleagues who must figure out how you got your numbers and what your numbers mean. In my shop, we document everything as explicitly as possible. The complete syntax takes longer to write by hand, but is much easier for others without the expertice in SPSS to follow. cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. *************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Mark A. Davenport Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst Office of Institutional Research The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 336.256.0395 [hidden email] 'An approximate answer to the right question is worth a good deal more than an exact answer to an approximate question.' --a paraphrase of J. W. Tukey (1962) ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Re: Syntax color code issues
|
|
In reply to this post by HBaize
For what it is worth, I have been using prior versions of SPSS and the
new syntax editor is an obvious improvement over the older ones - anyone have to scrutinize lines and lines of code trying to find that missing parenthesis, comma, or period? The color highlighting helps reduce errors in the code while typing (something I had found useful with the Textpad editor that some kind soul had developed sometime back for version 10, I think). So, the truncated commands are not highlighted (it would be a bonus if it did) - but the code still runs, the program still works like it should, and if I am a longtime coder, I don't have an issue with it. If, on the other hand I am a novice to syntax, then the color coding will help me, and others like me. What I find odd is that for a longtime coder/programmer, why would anyone make color coding the lynchpin of an argument to ditch a fundamentally solid program? Or, for that matter, why would an experienced programmer need any other automatic indicator of where one's code begins or ends? Good coding practice includes comments, indentation, spacing, etc., most likely obviating, or even circumventing inherent program characteristics to achieve one's own ends. This is not an issue to be simmering about IMHO. Mike -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
To a certain extent, "best practice" is a matter of opinion, and opinions differ. While three-letter abbreviation is a useful shortcut, I would argue that it is not "best practice" since the end result may often appear somewhat cryptic to a less experienced user trying to decipher the code. While the meaning of "cor var=varone vartwo" may be perfectly obvious to you, it may not be obvious to the aforementioned less experienced user. Looking in the Command Syntax Reference, that user won't find a "cor" command. He will, however, find both a Correlations and a Correspondence command.
-----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:03 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, Your comment about "best practice" to a customer was either condescending or ill-informed, even if interpreted generously. Either you were explaining to an obviously experienced user that he was not doing things "right" or you were not aware of the illogic inherent in SPSS's rationale for excluding abbreviated syntax. There is no reason it could not have been included. I suspect it was decided that the amount of work required to include abbreviated syntax in the color coding change was not worth the effort. Implicit in this decision was a willingness to exclude long standing SPSS users from easily using their years and years of existing syntax with the new color coding function. If SPSS wants to maintain credibility with their customers, they should at the very least acknowledge the decisions that were made and the implications that were deemed acceptable. Additionally, although a customer advisory board can substantively inform an analysis of potential implications of changes, it does not substitute for forethought exercised by programmers, software designers, and product managers more familiar with the inner workings of the old and new software. Also, your reply noticeably avoided addressing or even acknowledging the obvious arrogance that has been displayed on this LIST by SPSS employees relative to changes in functionality. Quite frankly I have been shocked by it. A problem needs to be recognized before it can be changed; that goes for organizational norms as well as software. Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: Weeks, Kyle [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:26 PM To: Whanger, J. Mr. CTR; [hidden email] Subject: RE: Re: Syntax color code issues Jim, unfortunately, certain things get lost in email like tone and intent. I was not trying to be dimissive or condescending in any way. I was simply trying to give an explanation of certian behavior and trying to clarify why certain things are done. I used SPSS for years before joining the company and continue to use the software daily. I also speak with many customers both on and off the list. We do take changes and the impact they have on users very seriously. My offers to beta test and/or serve on the customer advisory board were sincere. Some of our best customer insight and feedback comes from customers who may be unhappy with certain issues. Regards. Kyle ________________________________ From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ======= To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
Please allow me to clarify. The term "best practice" is not meant in a judgmental way. If we were teaching someone to write syntax from scratch using abbreviated syntax would not be the method we would recommend. This behavior is implemented inconsistently throughout the system.
The thought was that if we color coded that syntax, it could be very confusing to the user about why some abbreviations are supported, while others are unsupported. Thus we chose consistent behavior across all commands. Your existing syntax that worked with the abbreviations will continue to work, it is just we do not recommend using such abbreviations. With regard to perceived arrogance, everyone, I know from SPSS that responds is trying to be helpful. They are doing this on their own time, their participation is voluntary. Obviously, not every response is perfect, but people are trying to help. Apologies for any misunderstandings. Kyle ________________________________ From: Whanger, J. Mr. CTR [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 2:02 PM To: Weeks, Kyle; [hidden email] Subject: RE: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, Your comment about "best practice" to a customer was either condescending or ill-informed, even if interpreted generously. Either you were explaining to an obviously experienced user that he was not doing things "right" or you were not aware of the illogic inherent in SPSS's rationale for excluding abbreviated syntax. There is no reason it could not have been included. I suspect it was decided that the amount of work required to include abbreviated syntax in the color coding change was not worth the effort. Implicit in this decision was a willingness to exclude long standing SPSS users from easily using their years and years of existing syntax with the new color coding function. If SPSS wants to maintain credibility with their customers, they should at the very least acknowledge the decisions that were made and the implications that were deemed acceptable. Additionally, although a customer advisory board can substantively inform an analysis of potential implications of changes, it does not substitute for forethought exercised by programmers, software designers, and product managers more familiar with the inner workings of the old and new software. Also, your reply noticeably avoided addressing or even acknowledging the obvious arrogance that has been displayed on this LIST by SPSS employees relative to changes in functionality. Quite frankly I have been shocked by it. A problem needs to be recognized before it can be changed; that goes for organizational norms as well as software. Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: Weeks, Kyle [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:26 PM To: Whanger, J. Mr. CTR; [hidden email] Subject: RE: Re: Syntax color code issues Jim, unfortunately, certain things get lost in email like tone and intent. I was not trying to be dimissive or condescending in any way. I was simply trying to give an explanation of certian behavior and trying to clarify why certain things are done. I used SPSS for years before joining the company and continue to use the software daily. I also speak with many customers both on and off the list. We do take changes and the impact they have on users very seriously. My offers to beta test and/or serve on the customer advisory board were sincere. Some of our best customer insight and feedback comes from customers who may be unhappy with certain issues. Regards. Kyle ________________________________ From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 1:06 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Kyle, I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately, typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive attitude has resulted in my considering using different software. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Weeks, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics? Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as your time permits. I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as well. If you are interest please let me know. Regards. Kyle -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of "great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS inc. My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock key. In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color. Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I type: cor var=varone vartwo. The GUI would paste: CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=varone vartwo /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is the evidence? >>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are >>really not best practice.<< The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent features across procedures. All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files. Harold R. Baize, PhD Evaluations Butte County Behavioral Health I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great deal of customer input. The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work, it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax. Regards. Kyle Weeks, Ph.D. Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc. [hidden email] www.spss.com SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive analytics. -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of HBaize Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ====================To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
«
Return to SPSSX Discussion
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |