R versus Stata Redux

[This article was first published on Culture, Statistics, and Society, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

I’ve used both R and Stata for a long time, but these days I use Stata much more frequently than R. While R is useful for some kinds of graphics (especially three-dimensional graphics) and some statistical procedures (for example, finite mixture models), in general I prefer Stata as the go-to statistical program. The reasons are clear: Stata has superior help files for almost all ado files, Stata graphics are excellent (even contour plots are available in Stata), cleaning data is a breeze in Stata but awkward in R, labeling data is much efficient in Stata (in fact, as far as I can tell R does not allow for labeling variable names, while Stata allows for labeling levels of a variable, the variable itself, and the data set), and for many procedures Stata’s syntax is much more parsimonious than R’s.

Yet, R is worth learning because the 3-D graphics available are often extremely useful for exploring the data, and there will certainly be cases in which R will have statistical procedures that are unavailable or cumbersome in Stata (Bayesian analyses and finite mixture models come to mind, for example).

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: Culture, Statistics, and Society.

R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

Never miss an update!
Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive
e-mails with the latest R posts.
(You will not see this message again.)

Click here to close (This popup will not appear again)