I have also noticed this apparent contradiction, and my only stab at
explanation is to surmise that perhaps some regulations specific to
clinical trials business cap data file names at 8 characters. Maybe it is
a tradition formed during the times of versions earlier than 7. But,
again, it is just devil's advocate guessing on my part.
On the other note, I tend to agree with you that the good/bad programmer
situation is not rectifiable, but even if it were I would be far from the
notion that "something has to be done about it". The latter would beg the
questions "what?" and "by whom?", neither of which can be answered
satisfactorily. It is especially true about SAS programmers comprising
such an exceptionally diverse body of folks that any meaningful
comparative skill/productivity measurement at large is pretty much futile.
Of course, within a sufficiently small group people usually know quite
well who is worth what, and situations when skill/productivity and
compensation are not positively correlated within such a small sample are
fairly ubiquitous, but I suspect that on the average across the market,
more skilled/productive people are compensated better than their
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:08:34 -0700, Paige Miller <paige.miller@KODAK.COM>
>On Aug 13, 11:23 am, iebup...@GMAIL.COM ("Data _null_;") wrote:
>> The clinical trails SAS programming community is asking for input on
>> this document.
>Can anyone explain why this "best practices" document currently reads
>that data set names and variable names must be both "meaningful" and
>limited to 8 characters? I thought that restriction went out with SAS
>5 or SAS 6.
>So now SAS gives us the ability to write more meaningful variable
>names and data set names (up to 32 characters) and the best practices
>document wants us not to use this useful feature in SAS, as if it was
>still 1988. Maybe they are writing a best practices document for 1988.
>This is just one of many infuriating recommendations in this
>paige\dot\miller \at\ kodak\dot\com