On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:20:13PM +0800, John Darrington wrote: > Does anyone want to say what they would consider requirements for > a 1.0 release? > > > 1. Something to do within subjects analysis of variance and general > linear models. That means, at least the more common parts of the > GLM command, and the ANOVA and MANOVA commands. I think Jason > is doing good work towards this. > > 2. A way to get good quality tables and charts, displayed in the > GUI, prefereably with some sort of interaction, and to be able to > export them to OpenOffice.Org I understand you're working towards > that.
I agree that both of these should be the main goals for a 1.0 release. I'm starting to use PSPP in my intro. classes, and it does the basic analyses acceptably. But the default output is just ugly, and that's going to turn away a lot of users. Also, GLM, with all its linear model variants, is the procedure that will do most of the users' routine analyses, so that should definitely be in a 1.0 release. About GLM: I think glm.q is going to grow large enough to make glm.q illegible. It has to be able to do a lot of different tasks, and they should be split among different files. So maybe we should all hack on the GLM procedure. The guts of it are just least-squares, but translating from the user's syntax to the particular covariance matrix and back will be a lot of work. I can handle the least-squares coding and the post-fit computations, but I think someone else should write the code to read the syntax, dole out the work to the linear model code, and organize the output. I don't mind doing it all myself if no one else wants to pitch in, but it will take a lot longer that way. I say all this after having spent a lot of time on that one-pass covariance algorithm, and thinking about all that still needs to be done in src/math/ to support GLM. What do you think? -Jason _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
