From: Robert Chung <rechung_at_gmail.com>

Date: Thu 05 Jan 2006 - 20:46:42 EST

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html Received on Thu Jan 05 21:16:24 2006

Date: Thu 05 Jan 2006 - 20:46:42 EST

Roger Bivand wrote:

*> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
**>
*

>> For example, consider this introductory session in Stata:

*>> http://www.stata.com/capabilities/session.html
**>>
**> Could I ask for comments on:
**> source(url("http://spatial.nhh.no/R/etc/capabilities.R"), echo=TRUE)
**> as a reproduction of the Stata capabilities session?
*

Roger, I think your reproduction of the Stata session is excellent.

However, in a deeper sense, perhaps it's *too* faithful a replication. I don't normally do analyses exactly the same way in R and in Stata, so although it's possible to contort R into producing Stata-like output, why would anyone want to? For example, in the sample Stata session, they run a t-test before plotting any data. In R, I'd tend to plot early and test hypotheses after. Rather that print out the top and bottom 5 mileage cars, I might plot(weight,mpg,col=as.integer(foreign)) and identify() the bivariate oddities. Rather than start into linear models, I might do some lowess() lines. I'd probably do a splom() pretty early. Depending on what I was doing, maybe I'd do something like stars(auto[,-c(1,12)],labels=make).

Stata and R are both fine products, but I sometimes wonder how the tools one chooses affect the analyses one does.

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html Received on Thu Jan 05 21:16:24 2006

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Fri 03 Mar 2006 - 03:41:51 EST
*