>>11498441User friendly programs with gui cost money and are usually very rigid. Also, developing and supporting them takes bioinformatics.
The best freeware solutions still need the operator to know how to use console and read technical documentation.
But most frequently you need to parse some shitty database where all biologists dump their data without unified standards. No way around writing your own spaghetti here that will serve this one and only task.
Then you get your output in whatever format your workflow leads and you need to do statits on it, or machine learning and statits. I can't imagine there will ever be a user-friendly program for this.
You can say excel is really powerful, but whoever can use it to its full potential is far from normie and at that point it stops being user-friendly. Plus, gl working with tens of thousands of rows in excel.
If there ever is a user-friendly program that can get whatever stats you need with a click, it means it can understand spoken language and form and test hypotheses on its own. At this point all scientists can pack their shit, cos this metal perfection needs no meatbags.
And always there are 12 alternative solitions for any biodata type you want to process, so you read the papers and try to figure out which holy grail is the real one. Sometimes authors embellish their work and it is shit and makes little sense, smtimes their algo is mathematically cool, but takes ages on your battlestation. Or it can be that even if you narrow it down to 1 program, there are 100 parameters and different stages you need to put into sequence yourself.
Not running out of work any time soon, thats for sure.
