I have defined some R functions in R studio which has some complicated scripts and a lot of readlines. I can run them successfully in R studio. Is there any way, like macros to transfer these user-defined functions to SAS 9.4 to use? I am not pretty familiar with SAS programming so it is better just copy the R functions into SAS and use it directly. I am trying to figure out how to do the transformation. Thank you!
You can't natively run R code in SAS, and you probably wouldn't want to. R and SAS are entirely different concepts, SAS being closer to a database language while R is a matrix language. Efficient R approaches are terrible in SAS, and vice versa. (Try a simple loop in R and you'll find SAS is orders of magnitude faster; but try matrix algebra in R instead).
You can call R in SAS, though. You need to be in PROC IML, SAS's matrix language (which may be a separate license from your SAS); once there, you use submit / R to submit the code to R. You need the RLANG system option to be set, and you may need some additional details set up on your SAS box to make sure it can see your R installation, and you need R 3.0+. You also need to be running SAS 9.22 or newer.
If you don't have R available through IML, you can use x or call system, if those are enabled and you have access to R through the command line. Alternately, you can run R by hand separately from SAS. Either way you would use a CSV or similar file format to transfer data back and forth.
Finally, I recommend seeing if there's a better approach in SAS for the same problem you solved in R. There usually is, and it's often quite fast.
I would like to run some Matlab scripts. Nevertheless we don't have the Matlab licence so it is necessary a conversion from Matlab to R language. Unfortunately I'm totally new in Matlab but not in R. Is it possible to read Matlab scripts using R or is there an easy way to translate Matlab scripts in R?
Rewriting from one language to another can be a painstaking process, especially because your have to take great care that the outcomes of both sets of codes are the same. I see roughly four approaches:
Digest the goal of the scripts, put aside the matlab code, and rewrite in R
Try and mimic the matlab code in R
Run the matlab code in octave, and interface with R
Run the code in Octave entirely
These are roughly in order of amount of work. If you just want to get the Matlab code working, definitely use Octave, which should run the code with minimal changes. If you want to convert the code to R, and continue developing in R, I would go for the first option. In that way you can leverage the real strenghts of R, as R is quite different (link with info, comparison R and matlab). But it does take the largest amount of time. Even if you reimplement in R, I would recommend getting the code running in Octave to be able to see if your results in R fit with the Matlab code.
I will be analysing vast amount of network traffic related data shortly, and will pre-process the data in order to analyse it. I have found that R and SPSS are among the most popular tools for statistical analysis. I will also be generating quite a lot of graphs and charts. Therefore, I was wondering what is the basic difference between these two softwares.
I am not asking which one is better, but just wanted to know what are the difference in terms of workflow between the two (besides the fact that SPSS has a GUI). I will be mostly working with scripts in either case anyway so I wanted to know about the other differences.
Here is something that I posted to the R-help mailing list a while back, but I think that it gives a good high level overview of the general difference in R and SPSS:
When talking about user friendlyness
of computer software I like the
analogy of cars vs. busses:
Busses are very easy to use, you just
need to know which bus to get on,
where to get on, and where to get off
(and you need to pay your fare). Cars
on the other hand require much more
work, you need to have some type of
map or directions (even if the map is
in your head), you need to put gas in
every now and then, you need to know
the rules of the road (have some type
of drivers licence). The big advantage
of the car is that it can take you a
bunch of places that the bus does not
go and it is quicker for some trips
that would require transfering between
busses.
Using this analogy programs like SPSS
are busses, easy to use for the
standard things, but very frustrating
if you want to do something that is
not already preprogrammed.
R is a 4-wheel drive SUV (though
environmentally friendly) with a bike
on the back, a kayak on top, good
walking and running shoes in the
pasenger seat, and mountain climbing
and spelunking gear in the back.
R can take you anywhere you want to go
if you take time to leard how to use
the equipment, but that is going to
take longer than learning where the
bus stops are in SPSS.
There are GUIs for R that make it a bit easier to use, but also limit the functionality that can be used that easily. SPSS does have scripting which takes it beyond being a mere bus, but the general phylosophy of SPSS steers people towards the GUI rather than the scripts.
I work at a company that uses SPSS for the majority of our data analysis, and for a variety of reasons - I have started trying to use R for more and more of my own analysis. Some of the biggest differences I have run into include:
Output of tables - SPSS has basic tables, general tables, custom tables, etc that are all output to that nifty data viewer or whatever they call it. These can relatively easily be transported to Word Documents or Excel sheets for further analysis / presentation. The equivalent function in R involves learning LaTex or using a odfWeave or Lyx or something of that nature.
Labeling of data --> SPSS does a pretty good job with the variable labels and value labels. I haven't found a robust solution for R to accomplish this same task.
You mention that you are going to be scripting most of your work, and personally I find SPSS's scripting syntax absolutely horrendous, to the point that I've stopped working with SPSS whenever possible. R syntax seems much more logical and follows programming standards more closely AND there is a very active community to rely on should you run into trouble (SO for instance). I haven't found a good SPSS community to ask questions of when I run into problems.
Others have pointed out some of the big differences in terms of cost and functionality of the programs. If you have to collaborate with others, their comfort level with SPSS or R should play a factor as you don't want to be the only one in your group that can work on or edit a script that you wrote in the future.
If you are going to be learning R, this post on the stats exchange website has a bunch of great resources for learning R: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/138/resources-for-learning-r
The initial workflow for SPSS involves justifying writing a big fat cheque. R is freely available.
R has a single language for 'scripting', but don't think of it like that, R is really a programming language with great data manipulation, statistics, and graphics functionality built in. SPSS has 'Syntax', 'Scripts' and is also scriptable in Python.
Another biggie is that SPSS squeezes its data into a spreadsheety table structure. Dealing with other data structures is probably very hard, but comes naturally to R. I wouldn't know where to start handling network graph type data in SPSS, but there's a package to do it for R.
Also with R you can integrate your workflow with your reporting by using Sweave - you write a document with embedded bits of R code that generate plots or tables, run the file through the system and out comes the report as a PDF. Great for when you want to do a weekly report, or you do a body of work and then the boss gives you an updated data set. Re-run, read it over, its done.
But you know, your call...
Well, are you a decent programmer? If you are, then it's worthwhile to learn R. You can do more with your data, both in terms of manipulation and statistical modeling, than you can with SPSS, and your graphs will likely be better too. On the other hand, if you've never really programmed before, or find the idea of spending several months becoming a programmer intimidating, you'll probably get more value out of SPSS. The level of stuff that you can do with R without diving into its power as a full-fledged programming language probably doesn't justify the effort.
There's another option -- collaborate. Do you know someone you can work with on your project (you don't say whether it's academic or industry, but either way...), who knows R well?
There's an interesting (and reasonably fair) comparison between a number of stats tools here
http://anyall.org/blog/2009/02/comparison-of-data-analysis-packages-r-matlab-scipy-excel-sas-spss-stata/
I work with both in a company and can say the following:
If you have a large team of different people (not all data scientists), SPSS is useful because it is plain (relatively) to understand. For example, if users are going to run a model to get an output (sales estimates, etc), SPSS is clear and easy to use.
That said, I find R better in almost every other sense:
R is faster (although, sometimes debatable)
As stated previously, the syntax in SPSS is aweful (I can't stress this enough). On the other hand, R can be painful to learn, but there are tons of resources online and in the end it pays much more because of the different things you can do.
Again, like everyone else says, the sky is the limit with R. Tons of packages, resources and more importantly: indepedence to do as you please. In my organization we have some very high level functions that get a lot done. The hard part is creating them once, but then they perform complicated tasks that SPSS would tangle in a never ending web of canvas. This is specially true for things like loops.
It is often overlooked, but R also has plenty of features to cooperate between teams (github integration with RStudio, and easy package building with devtools).
Actually, if everyone in your organization knows R, all you need is to maintain a basic package on github to share everything. This of course is not the norm, which is why I think SPSS, although a worst product, still has a market.
I have not data for it, but from my experience I can tell you one thing:
SPSS is a lot slower than R. (And with a lot, I really mean a lot)
The magnitude of the difference is probably as big as the one between C++ and R.
For example, I never have to wait longer than a couple of seconds in R. Using SPSS and similar data, I had calculations that took longer than 10 minutes.
As an unrelated side note: In my eyes, in the recent discussion on the speed of R, this point was somehow overlooked (i.e., the comparison with SPSS). Furthermore, I am astonished how this discussion popped up for a while and silently disappeared again.
There are some great responses above, but I will try to provide my 2 cents. My department completely relies on SPSS for our work, but in recent months, I have been making a conscious effort to learn R; in part, for some of the reasons itemized above (speed, vast data structures, available packages, etc.)
That said, here are a few things I have picked up along the way:
Unless you have some experience programming, I think creating summary tables in CTABLES destroys any available option in R. To date, I am unaware package that can replicate what can be created using Custom Tables.
SPSS does appear to be slower when scripting, and yes, SPSS syntax is terrible. That said, I have found that scipts in SPSS can always be improved but using the EXECUTE command sparingly.
SPSS and R can interface with each other, although it appears that it's one way (only when using R inside of SPSS, not the other way around). That said, I have found this to be of little use other than if I want to use ggplot2 or for some other advanced data management techniques. (I despise SPSS macros).
I have long felt that "reporting" work created in SPSS is far inferior to other solutions. As mentioned above, if you can leverage LaTex and Sweave, you will be very happy with your efficient workflows.
I have been able to do some advanced analysis by leveraging OMS in SPSS. Almost everything can be routed to a new dataset, but I have found that most SPSS users don't use this functionality. Also, when looking at examples in R, it just feels "easier" than using OMS.
In short, I find myself using SPSS when I can't figure it out quickly in R, but I sincerely have every intention of getting away from SPSS and using R entirely at some point in the near future.
SPSS provides a GUI to easily integrate existing R programs or develop new ones. For more info, see the SPSS Community on IBM Developer Works.
#Henrik, I did the same task you have mentioned (C++ and R) on SPSS. And it turned out that SPSS is faster compared to R on this one. In my case SPSS is aprox. 7 times faster. I am surprised about it.
Here is a code I used in SPSS.
data list free
/x (f8.3).
begin data
1
end data.
comp n = 1e6.
comp t1 = $time.
loop #rep = 1 to 10.
comp x = 1.
loop #i=1 to n.
comp x = 1/(1+x).
end loop.
end loop.
comp t2 = $time.
comp elipsed = t2 - t1.
form elipsed (f8.2).
exe.
Check out this video why is good to combine SPSS and R...
Link
http://bluemixanalytics.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/7-good-reasons-to-combine-ibm-spss-analytics-and-r/
If you have a compatible copy of R installed, you can connect to it from IBM SPSS Modeler and carry out model building and model scoring using custom R algorithms that can be deployed in IBM SPSS Modeler. You must also have a copy of IBM SPSS Modeler - Essentials for R installed. IBM SPSS Modeler - Essentials for R provides you with tools you need to start developing custom R applications for use with IBM SPSS Modeler.
The truth is: both packages are useful if you do data analysis professionally. Sure, R / RStudio has more statistical methods implemented than SPSS. But SPSS is much easier to use and gives more information per each button click. And, therefore, it is faster to exploit whenever a particular analysis is implemented in both R and SPSS.
In the modern age, neither CPU nor memory is the most valuable resource. Researcher's time is the most valuable resource. Also, tables in SPSS are more visually pleasing, in my opinion.
In summary, R and SPSS complement each other well.
Have been using Stata to run negative binomial regressions in a replication. Not sure what is under the hood on how Stata does this, but wanted to know if there is an R function/package that does the same thing? The R will give me a better idea of how this works, since I can see the code.
Look into the glm.nb function in the MASS package. If you're interested in what's happening "under the hood," you can see the source code of the function by just entering its name at the command prompt.
If you're more comfortable using R, then that's probably the way to go; however, if you're interested in what's "under the hood" in Stata, you can always see what's going on in much the same way as in R by using
set trace on
to see what code is running (or download tr from SSC) or using
viewsource xtnbreg.ado
to see the actual code that is run by xtnbreg.
If you're interested in how Stata is calculating the results in xtnbreg there is a detailed discussion of the likelihood function in the [XT] manual page 367-370 with references included.