mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) (06/25/91)
I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform
for a large database project. I see few postings on R:BASE or MICRORIM, is this
because of any particular reason.
Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would
be appreciated also.
Howard S. Nichols
~
--
#### ####
#### #### University of Michigan
## ### ## Department of Pathology
## # ## Personal Computers & Network Systems
## ## nichols@horus.pds.med.umich.ed OR mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu
#### ####onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) (06/26/91)
In article <zvh#aPA@engin.umich.edu> mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform >for a large database project.I see few postings on R:BASE or MICRORIM, is this >because of any particular reason. Well, yes, at least in my particular case. The reason is: R:Base bites! It's slow. It's clunky. It's not state of the art. It's not even 5 years behind the times, it's so outdated. Try to check for the existence of a file. Try to find out what the name of the currently-connected database is. Try to write error-handlers. R:Base was *the* choice in its time -- the early 80s. *IF* you needed to have SQL, R:Base was for you. Now, most everything else blows it away. Of course, R:Base gurus know a way to do everything in R:Base (only it takes a hundred lines of obscure code, uses undocumented features, relies on C code, or what have you) but you can do the same thing in any of a number of competing products with a simple keyword, function, or UDF. And of course you gotta know an R:Base guru to help you out... And the Microrim people have a pat response for any problems or limitations you might take to them: It's being fixed in the next release. The most impressive thing, IMO, about Microrim is: people still buy R:Base. People still use it. Why? Ya got me. > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would >be appreciated also. R:base is a passable product if you just need to create some tables and make relations between them. For any real applications, I suggest you move to something else. Specifically, I suggest you wait until FoxPro 2.0 hits the street. Bruce -- Bruce W. Onder onder@isi.edu (He's not your everyday-type prankster!) I'm Ice-T: Original Gangster (O.G.: Original Gangster)
krisk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Kris Klindworth) (06/26/91)
In article <zvh#aPA@engin.umich.edu> mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: > > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform >for a large database project. Don't do it! You'll hate yourself when R:BASE-"The next generation" comes out. I started out working with R:BASE System V. I wrote and debugged upwards of 2000 lines of code. When I upgrade to R:BASE for DOS, I had to go through a lot of hassle debugging my programs again. Why? Because the new features added lots of new key words and required minor changes in syntax for commands which already existed. MICRORIM also did a major overhall of the menuing system as well, so I had to feel my way around that too. I switched over to Paradox 3.0 about the time R:BASE 3.0 came out. Some of my coworkers upgraded to R:BASE 3.0 and then to 3.1 a few months latter. Now they are suffering because of it. Again, NONE of their programs work (lots of nice new "features", pesky new key words, and capricious variations of syntax ;-). They are also having trouble getting use to the NEW-AND-IMPROVED user interface. Please don't get me wrong. R:Base 3.1 is better than R:Base for DOS, which was better than R:Base System V. From what I have seen of 3.1, it is an attractive package, but you say you have a large project. If MICRORIM stays true to form you'll have to repeat it when the next version of R:BASE comes out. If I haven't scared you enough about MICRORIM products, drop me a line and I'll go into my horror stories about working with their programming language. > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would >be appreciated also. Paradox seems to be a pretty stable platform and I have heard lots of good things about Foxbase. If you need SQL, Informix is a company with a good history on Unix boxes and reviewers have said that their MS-DOS product is a pretty good developers environment. Paradox is, of course, my personal preference on MS-DOS machines. Its user interface is so simple that I learned to use it in just 2 days, yet it is so powerful that I really haven't had to write much code. For things like updating batches of data, I simple turn on the record option and walk thru one example of the update process. Paradox records the key strokes as Paradox Application Language (PAL) commands in a script file. This file can then be replayed the for the next update. It can also be edited and combined with other recorded scripts. I have used the Personal Programmer applications generator on several occasions to set up menuing systems into which I patched these recorded scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______ Kris Klindworth Internet: krisk@ux1.uiuc.edu \ ( Database Programmer/Analyst Phone : (217)244-7120 / | Illinois State Water Survey US Mail : 2204 Griffith Dr ( x|<----------------------------------------------- Champaign, IL 61820 \ | ( ) Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here were mine. They are {_v_} not necessarily those of my employer and are subject to change without notice. :-)
pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (06/26/91)
In article <18360@venera.isi.edu>, onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) writes: |> In article <zvh#aPA@engin.umich.edu> mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: |> |> > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform |> >for a large database project.I see few postings on R:BASE or MICRORIM, is this |> >because of any particular reason. |> |> > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would |> >be appreciated also. |> |> Specifically, I suggest you wait until FoxPro 2.0 hits the street. |> |> Bruce FoxPro 2.0 will be great, but I don't think you need to wait for it. FoxPro 1.02 is an excellent product, and the serious bugs have now been shaken out. FoxPro 2.0 is supposed to be released soon, but there have already been delays and who knows when it will finally come out (take your time, Fox, solid is better than soon). If you buy 1.02 you will be entitled to a free upgrade to 2.0. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew ----------------------------------------------------------------
onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) (06/27/91)
In article <79429@brunix.UUCP> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: >In article <18360@venera.isi.edu>, onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) writes: >|> Specifically, I suggest you wait until FoxPro 2.0 hits the street. > > >FoxPro 2.0 will be great, but I don't think you need to wait for it. >FoxPro 1.02 is an excellent product, and the serious bugs have now >been shaken out. The reason I didn't suggest 1.02 is that *it's so fun to develop things in 2.0*! :) >FoxPro 2.0 is supposed to be released soon, but >there have already been delays and who knows when it will finally come >out (take your time, Fox, solid is better than soon). Well, Tom Rettig has dibs on the 28th in the pool, but we'll see. >If you buy 1.02 >you will be entitled to a free upgrade to 2.0. If you buy it now. If you bought before February, 2.0 will cost you $195. Or so they say. Bruce -- Bruce W. Onder onder@isi.edu Joel Wallach transmits cosmic energies that dissolve blockages within you, boosting your inner power and radiance. Ten years experience.
GO.MSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Marvin Beck) (06/27/91)
In article <79429@brunix.UUCP>, pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: >In article <18360@venera.isi.edu>, onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) writes: >|> In article <zvh#aPA@engin.umich.edu> mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: >|> >|> > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform >|> >for a large database project.I see few postings on R:BASE or MICRORIM, is this >|> >because of any particular reason. >|> >|> > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would >|> >be appreciated also. >|> >|> Specifically, I suggest you wait until FoxPro 2.0 hits the street. >|> >|> Bruce > >FoxPro 2.0 will be great, but I don't think you need to wait for it. >FoxPro 1.02 is an excellent product, and the serious bugs have now >been shaken out. FoxPro 2.0 is supposed to be released soon, but >there have already been delays and who knows when it will finally come >out (take your time, Fox, solid is better than soon). If you buy 1.02 >you will be entitled to a free upgrade to 2.0. ???? > > Peter > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu >Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET >Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew >---------------------------------------------------------------- free ???? I talked to them about a month ago and was told ?$195 for upgrade. Who is your contact? Thanks. Marvin Beck Iowa State University
pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.154737.24043@news.iastate.edu>, GO.MSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Marvin Beck) writes: |> In article <79429@brunix.UUCP>, |> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: |> >In article <18360@venera.isi.edu>, onder@ISI.EDU (Bruce Onder) writes: |> >|> In article <zvh#aPA@engin.umich.edu> mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: |> >|> |> >|> > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform |> >|> >for a large database project.I see few postings on R:BASE or MICRORIM, is this |> >|> >because of any particular reason. |> >|> |> >|> > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would |> >|> >be appreciated also. |> >|> |> >|> Specifically, I suggest you wait until FoxPro 2.0 hits the street. |> >|> |> >|> Bruce |> > |> >FoxPro 2.0 will be great, but I don't think you need to wait for it. |> >FoxPro 1.02 is an excellent product, and the serious bugs have now |> >been shaken out. FoxPro 2.0 is supposed to be released soon, but |> >there have already been delays and who knows when it will finally come |> >out (take your time, Fox, solid is better than soon). If you buy 1.02 |> >you will be entitled to a free upgrade to 2.0. |> ???? |> > |> > Peter |> > |> >-- |> |> free ???? |> |> I talked to them about a month ago and was told c$195 for upgrade. |> Who is your contact? Thanks. |> |> Marvin Beck Iowa State University Free if you're buying FoxPro 1.02 NOW (after 2/91 in fact). I guess this wasn't clear. Sorry about the misleading statement. Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew ----------------------------------------------------------------
phred@well.sf.ca.us (Fred Heutte) (06/28/91)
Although there is obvious disdain for R:Base, I think you'll find any DBMS has its supporters and detractors. Like any *good* DBMS, R:Base has good points and some bad ones. The comments received so far indicate an incomplete understanding of those, however. The upgrade from version 2 to version 3 entailed a number of major changes for the program, including "full" compatibility with ANSI Level 2 SQL (let's not get into any arguments about what that means here ;-), a completely revamped menu system, much better forms (including pop-up menus, triggers, etc.) and so forth. The new version clearly is slower than version 2 for some functions and faster for others. Given the market it is aimed for -- mid-level developers and sophisticated ad-hoc end users -- R:Base is a very nice mainstream PC product. Unlike the xBase programs its SQL is inherent in the structure of the program (not a kludge pasted on top of a record-oriented processing approach), and the prompts, help system and so forth are nice if somewhat clunky. I've used R:Base for six years and find it to be a good general-purpose development environment. Even RBEDIT, the formerly horrible built-in program editor, is almost bearable now (although I still use QuickEdit). I use it for databases with 200 records and those with 200,000. I have sampled or done some fairly in-depth work with many other DBMS, including dBase, FoxBase/Pro, Informix for the PC (a real dog, although the Unix version is fine) and SuperBase. Microrim has had a varying commitment to R:Base over the years as its attention was drawn away to other projects (such as the ill-fated cross-platform Atlas project), but they keep coming back and improving R:Base itself (sometimes later rather than sooner, but that's hardly unusual for DBMS companies, as indicated in somewhat-fair-somewhat-unfair monikers like "Trashed'n'Late" ;-) Those of us who are more or less R:Base regulars have long want-lists, but then don't we all. Paradox is very nice for 'casual' use and in some cases is much faster than R:Base, but I find its menu/script approach z0Pw6q-9~a real set of handcuffs. Once you get into PAL, it's no easier than any other development language. For that matter, I find R:Base coding to be reasonably compact while retaining readability, although some of its constructs are incredibly irritating. I would be happy to correspond with anyone having further questions about R:Base or specific issues and comparisons to other DBMS platforms. Fred Heutte W3XY | Why make it simple and easy Sunlight Data Systems | when you can make it complex PO Box 40308 | and wonderful? Portland, Oregon 97240 | 503/241-0858 | phred@well.sf.ca.us |