tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May16.203441.5517@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >In article <24316@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit) writes: >>In article <1991May14.203455.7766@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >>>The benefits of Clipper 5.0 include "computer language" improvements which >>>I don't see coming from A-T and Fox. I don't see how you missed FoxPro's enhanced windowing functionality. Also, I hope people know that Ashton-Tate is working on far more things than just dBASE IV 1.2, 1.3, et cetera. Some of our R&D work involves things that are unlike any product we currently sell. >>I think this is the jist of the argument - one man's "language improvement" >>is another man's worst nightmare. In the latest Data Based Advisor the >>editor quotes Larry Humdinger, the illustrious leader or Nantucket, as >>saying something to the effect that Clipper has "gone beyond (dBASE)". I >>agree with his sentiments exactly, thought I believe he and I would differ >>as to direction. >> >>You have to ask yourself "what constitues a language improvement"? As I >>(and the people who work for me) write and maintain more and more applications >>we are less and less inclined to define it as being "technically excellent", >>which seems to be Clippers only claim to fame these days. It surely isnt >>in productivity, after writing in FoxPro, CLipper is no fun. Earlier >>postings would indicate its not in bug-free code, so we'd better rule out >>reliability. <etc.> > >Mark, > >The man's name is Larry Heimendinger and he is the President and COO, he is >not the "illustrious leader or Nantucket". Agreed. My paperback dictionary here defines illustrious as "reputable because of achievement or character". As such, to say that Mr. Heimendinger is not illustrious is one of the understatements of the year! :-) >As for language improvements, I didn't think it was totally up the users to >take a vote on things like that... I guess Northrop's latest jet designs are >worthless because I've flown ultra-lights and those Northrop planes have too >many lights and dials to be practical. > >If Clipper isn't doing the job for you and FoxPro is then by all means switch >FoxPro doesn't do the job for me, so I use Clipper. There is an appearance >of "were smart 'cause we use FoxPro and you're stupid because you don't" in >most FoxPro users' messages that I read. I assure you that I'm as capable of >writing something in FoxPro as anyone on the planet but I choose not to. I personally think that Dave Fulton could give you a run for your money there.... :-) (I don't want to sound critical, Tom, but there is rather a know-it-all tone in many of your postings, too!) >As for productivity claims, I've heard all that nonsense before, if a person >understands their tools and plans accordingly they are productive, that goes >for any language and for any endeavor. Clipper is the superior language, >FoxPro is the superior IDE, I don't use IDEs as a general rule. I would like to suggest that the relevant issue to most people in the real world is products, not languages. One can study things such as Oberon or Eiffel from a language design point of view, but their limited availability (as well as a limited talent pool to draw from) is probably what keeps them as fairly academic items at this point, compared to COBOL, C, etc. Similarily, one can admire Clipper's syntax extensions. (I personally feel 5.0 is somewhat of a mishmash of concepts from various sources, but then, this was true of dBASE II, as well. However, starting yet another endless language war is not what most people want to see in this group.) But, any language design or feature set is only as good as its actual implementation. Further, factors such as quality of documentation and tech support, as well as portability and the availability of skilled users affect the actual value of a product, unless you are off sitting on an island in the Pacific somewhere. (HHOJ, Tom L.!) Note that portability also encompasses the reusability of existing source code. I would like to suggest that a Clipper Cult is developing, and this is not really knocking Clipper, either. I feel that in the recent past, one could jump back and forth between Ashton-Tate products and various clone products such as dBXL, FoxBASE and, in its eariler versions, Clipper. However, with Clipper 5.0, as these recent series of postings seems to suggest, you really have to buy into it (the 5.0 style of development) and be prepared to stick with it. Currently, this also implies using products from a single vendor on a single platform. (Unless McMax counts! :-) ) I think people should be aware of this going in. Tom Leylan is arguably one of the most expert Clipper developers in the entire solar system. He may be having "no problems" but other people obviously are. This is not to knock Clipper, but to suggest to others that to get full benefit of 5.0 you will have to leave much of your dBASE mind set (and also code!) behind. Also, I feel that PC magazine's not including Clipper (following a precedent of PC Week some time before) as a DBMS package was justified. It really is more of a pure language, and should be compared to BASIC, C, and even the dBASE language itself. (btw, to contradict an earlier posting, the PC Mag review was co-ordinated by David Kalman, long time editor of Data Based Advisor. I doubt he will be reviewing PC Tools (or whatever else) next week, as an earlier post suggested.) Further, I feel these recent Clipper vs. FoxPro postings really are comparing apples to oranges. As Tom L. seems to suggest, it often is just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job based on your individual situation. However, I would like to stress that overall language design is just one factor in such an evaluation. But, as other forums have demonstrated for years, there is apparently no end to "my product is better than yours" debates.... Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May20.182201.20099@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts) writes: > >I don't see how you missed FoxPro's enhanced windowing functionality. Also, >I hope people know that Ashton-Tate is working on far more things than >just dBASE IV 1.2, 1.3, et cetera. Some of our R&D work involves >things that are unlike any product we currently sell. > Tom, It appears that we have various definitions of what constitutes a 'language enhancement'... you're implying the new GUI C library in town is an extension to the C language, I don't buy that argument. > >Agreed. My paperback dictionary here defines illustrious as "reputable >because of achievement or character". As such, to say that Mr. Heimendinger >is not illustrious is one of the understatements of the year! :-) > This from a company who had Ed Esber as it's leader. Frankly I'm surprised that you would stoop to this kind of stuff. You may be unaware of it but Larry Heimendinger works for Nantucket, he doesn't own the company, hence my questioning the term "illustrious leader". The use of illustrious was BTW, used as a slight not as a compliment by the original author. . >I personally think that Dave Fulton could give you a run for your money >there.... :-) (I don't want to sound critical, Tom, but there is rather >a know-it-all tone in many of your postings, too!) Do you know Dave Fulton ? Does he program in FoxPro ? Do the developers of dBASE Flaw (you want to play word games ?) program in dBASE ? I am being told by a programmer at Northrop all about how Clipper works... I'll ask him all about how dBASE works, maybe we can find out about A-T's development plans from him also. Maybe he knows when the so-called compiler is due.. > This isn't a discussion on the relative merits of languages it's a bunch of people defending their turf. I find it hard to believe that the same sort of loony discussions would survive on the C language newsgroup. It cannot be argued that lexical scoping is "bad" or that powerful preprocessors should be avoided. Arguments like that make little sense and I can't be bothered by them. tom
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (05/23/91)
Tom Rombouts recently hinted at A-T projects that don't have much to do with dBase IV 1.2 or 1.3...... perhaps they have to do with the recent buyout of Interbase? A-T now has a Unix data base engine comparable (not exactly like) to Oracle or Ingress (among others). So, ah..... I wonder what they have planned for their purchase? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May21.213203.27689@pegasus.com>, tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: > In article <1991May20.182201.20099@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts) writes: > > > >I don't see how you missed FoxPro's enhanced windowing functionality. Also, > >I hope people know that Ashton-Tate is working on far more things than > >just dBASE IV 1.2, 1.3, et cetera. Some of our R&D work involves > >things that are unlike any product we currently sell. > > > Tom, It appears that we have various definitions of what constitutes a > 'language enhancement'... you're implying the new GUI C library in town is > an extension to the C language, I don't buy that argument. Excuse me for butting in, but you guys chose to broadcast your discussion. I think Mr. Rombouts' wording was (as you reproduced) "enhanced windowing functionality," not "language enhancement." Clipper 5.0 is all about language enhancement, granted, but as other posters have made clear, these products are all simply means to an end. Language, enhanced or otherwise, is not functionality. > >My paperback dictionary here defines illustrious as "reputable > >because of achievement or character". As such, to say that Mr. Heimendinger > >is not illustrious is one of the understatements of the year! :-) > > > This from a company who had Ed Esber as it's leader. Frankly I'm surprised > that you would stoop to this kind of stuff. I don't even know Mr. Heimendinger, but you can't work in the dBASE field without hearing (probably untrue) stories about him featuring the words sleaze and cutthroat. Ed Esber's reputation is worse, granted, but these folks always seemed cut from the same cloth in the tales I've heard spun. I'd advise Mr. Rombouts (a friend who works 400 miles from my office) to more assiduously avoid slander charges, and Mr. Leylan to get off his high horse. And the net to get back to factual technical issues. > >I personally think that Dave Fulton could give you a run for your money > >there.... :-) (I don't want to sound critical, Tom, but there is rather > >a know-it-all tone in many of your postings, too!) > > Do you know Dave Fulton ? Does he program in FoxPro ? Do the developers of > dBASE Flaw (you want to play word games ?) program in dBASE? What's your problem, guy? Clipper 5.0 not selling due to bad press? I've met Dr. Fulton; I'll bet he uses his own product. I've produced whole dBASE applications under contract; some using Clipper. You sound awfully impressed that you not only worked on Clipper, but you use it, too. It doesn't mean that no one else has something to say. > This isn't a discussion on the relative merits of languages it's a bunch > of people defending their turf. You got that right, and it's a boring waste of time. If you look at any problem closely enough, you'll discover that you are part of the problem. > I find it hard to believe that the same > sort of loony discussions would survive on the C language newsgroup. It > cannot be argued that lexical scoping is "bad" or that powerful preprocessors > should be avoided. Don't be an idiot; of course it can. All technical decisions involve trade-offs and even motherhood issues such as information hiding imply costs. The trade-offs with Clipper 5.0 revolve around compatibility with an established standard and lack of an interactive development environment once one decides to leave the standard behind. > Arguments like that make little sense and I can't be bothered by them. You've been very helpful, in my opinion, to a lot of people in this newsgroup. I find your postings very knowledgable, informative and only occasionally ad hominem. I, for one, hope you'll concentrate on the former and let opinionated fools who try to tell you how Clipper _should_ work bash themselves. Mr. Rombouts does not fall into that category. /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) (06/05/91)
In article <1991May29.203231.26012@dbase.A-T.COM> awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes:
<a number of things trying to make Tom Rombouts statements less inflammatory
and mine moreso, takes a shot at Larry Heimendinger, tells me to get off of
my high horse and then tells everybody that they should stop it>
<agrees with me on a something and then attempts to place the blame on my
shoulders while placing himself in the catbird seat, Mr. Omniscient>
<and after a bit more battering invites me to continue>
Gee thanks Alastair.
Your turn to blame me for the ills of world... don't forget to twist the
stories around and end with an appeal for dignity. It must be time for
Rombouts to come out swinging again since he's had a rest while you pinch
hit.
I don't expect you to admit it but just about nothing you wrote has any
truth to it at all.
tom
BTW, I never said that I wrote parts of Clipper it's just one of the many
things you've dreamed up while responding.tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun5.112441.4573@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >In article <1991May29.203231.26012@dbase.A-T.COM> awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > ><a number of things trying to make Tom Rombouts statements less inflammatory > and mine moreso, takes a shot at Larry Heimendinger, tells me to get off of > my high horse and then tells everybody that they should stop it> [ summary deleted ] >Your turn to blame me for the ills of world... don't forget to twist the >stories around and end with an appeal for dignity. It must be time for >Rombouts to come out swinging again since he's had a rest while you pinch >hit. O.K., here I am. My apologies if comp.databases is becoming more like xbase.nitpicking.... I stand by my original post, which to me, was _not_ inflammatory. Here are the main points as I recall them: 1. Language features, to the actual user, are only as good as their implementation. 2. Clipper has moved away from the dBASE/xBASE "standard" and is a product for advanced users. 3. Clipper is currently not available on platforms such as UNIX or the Macintosh. (This by no means implies it is not a great DOS product.) 4. Debates about Clipper vs. FoxPro are really comparing two different things. Regarding specific personalities in the PC software world, let me make the following statement and see what happens: IMHO, Larry Heimendinger and Ed Esber have little in common with Bill Gates, Phillipe Kahn or Dave Fulton. Finally, I acknowledge your world-reknowned expertise in Clipper, Tom, but claiming you are at least equal to the world's best FoxPro developer, and repeatedly listing various credits and accomplishments as if The Net were some sort of job interview forum (maybe it is - I don't know) strikes me as slightly humorous. I have had the privilege to work in a PC software R&D group for the last two years, and have learned at least the following two things: 1. (Paraphrasing various people from other fields:) The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. 2. Dealing with people turns out to be far more critical than dealing with things. In summary, I feel I and other 'Taters in this group are fairly objective toward PC DBMS products. (btw, correct me if I am wrong, but I can not recall ever seeing a posting here from a current Nantucket or Fox Software employee. Borland stopped posting here about a year ago, if I recall correctly.) I think you may have some sort of virtual chip on your shoulder Tom, and because I (or others) are currently employed at Ashton-Tate you have read things into postings that are not there. Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun7.220945.18253@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes: > >1. Language features, to the actual user, are only as good as >their implementation. I didn't realize that I had a vote whether C should have pointers or not, if they aren't implemented to my liking then it's a lousy feature ? So does a tree falling in the forest only make noise if Tom Rombouts hears it ? You don't seem able to separate computer science from personal belief that's what gave us the crap known as dBASE today. >2. Clipper has moved away from the dBASE/xBASE "standard" and >is a product for advanced users. dBASE is no more a standard than Coca-Cola, it's "common", it's "popular" but it isn't a "standard" unless you're willing accept that not being able to read at age 16 is "standard"... it happens to be common. Standards are usually agreed upon, dBASE fell into it and others followed but you go on kidding yourself that it got there by virtue of being the best. > >Regarding specific personalities in the PC software world, let >me make the following statement and see what happens: > > IMHO, Larry Heimendinger and Ed Esber have little in common with > Bill Gates, Phillipe Kahn or Dave Fulton. > I think they all have one thing in common, non of them have spoken to you for 5 minutes. >Finally, I acknowledge your world-reknowned expertise in Clipper, >Tom, but claiming you are at least equal to the world's best >FoxPro developer, and repeatedly listing various credits and >accomplishments as if The Net were some sort of job interview >forum (maybe it is - I don't know) strikes me as slightly humorous. If I'm not bowing low enough to make you happy just let me know but I foolishly thought that if I could write in dBASE III and Clipper that I could put something fairly radical together in FoxPro. If they are that extraordinarily different perhaps you should post warnings. The reason that I post "credits" is one of substantiation, it highlights the possibility that I might actually know something about Clipper if all it takes to become an "expert" these days is using the product for an hour I'll waste a few hundred dollars to purchase dBASE IV and then you'll have to respect my knowledge as equal to yours (right) ? > >In summary, I feel I and other 'Taters in this group are fairly >objective toward PC DBMS products. (btw, correct me if I am wrong, >but I can not recall ever seeing a posting here from a current >Nantucket or Fox Software employee. Borland stopped posting here >about a year ago, if I recall correctly.) > >I think you may have some sort of virtual chip on your shoulder >Tom, and because I (or others) are currently employed at Ashton-Tate >you have read things into postings that are not there. In summary, I don't find that to be the case at all, I find that I and other Clipper developers clearly choose not to use and end users tool and are therefore being called "nose in the air" types. Pardon us for placing quality applications before following the crowd chanting "standards". If there is a chip it is plainly on your shoulder and it has affected your vision. If we might (Tom and Alastair) conclude this waste of time, we are not ever likely to agree. That you work for A-T does not IMO permit you to speak candidly and I would fully expect to hear similar things about how neat Paradox was if you worked for Borland. dBASE is an inferior "language", it may be a wonderful "product" just as DDT is a wonderful bug-killer but a lousy "food". If you can't see the deficiencies of dBASE as a language then I think A-T has more problems on the horizon... but maybe you'll succeed in convincing everyone that all previous yardsticks are inaccurate and only yours is the TRUE measure. Best of luck but don't send me any updates... tom >
tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts) (06/14/91)
Tom - The tone and content of your reply does more to validate my original comments than anything I can say. Still, I would like to clarify a few things: In article <1991Jun10.021431.134@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.220945.18253@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes: >> >>1. Language features, to the actual user, are only as good as >>their implementation. > >I didn't realize that I had a vote whether C should have pointers or not, if >they aren't implemented to my liking then it's a lousy feature ? So does a >tree falling in the forest only make noise if Tom Rombouts hears it ? > >You don't seem able to separate computer science from personal belief that's >what gave us the crap known as dBASE today. Let _me_ explain cs: language design, language implementation and software available for actual use are three distinct things. Since you choose to sling mud, let me respond in kind: At this point, Clipper 5.0/5.01 is still unproven to many developers. I never said it did not attempt to offer valuable new features. (btw, without that "crap" of dBASE and its original installed base, Clipper would not exist today.) >>2. Clipper has moved away from the dBASE/xBASE "standard" and >>is a product for advanced users. > >dBASE is no more a standard than Coca-Cola, it's "common", it's "popular" >but it isn't a "standard" unless you're willing accept that not being able >to read at age 16 is "standard"... it happens to be common. Standards are >usually agreed upon, dBASE fell into it and others followed but you go on >kidding yourself that it got there by virtue of being the best. This is exactly why I put "standard" in quotes. Still, it is my understanding that about 3 million units of dBASE III PLUS were shipped worldwide. Like it or not, dBASE III PLUS is the de facto standard of the X-base world. Add to this dBASE IV, FoxBASE/FoxPro, WordTech products and even Recital, and that is quite a large base of installed products that run very similar source code. (Note well that I am not saying that dBASE/X-base is necessarily the "best" language or environment, either.) Compare this with c. 200,000 units of Clipper. (Adam Green's estimate on Saturday in Woodland Hills.) Double that if you like for the sake of argument. I would be the first to agree that popularity often has little correlation with quality. But to some sites, the choice between maintaining or using "classic" dBASE code vs. Clipper 5.0 style code, which appears as a cross between C and dBASE, will be influenced by the ease of finding people to maintain it or source portability concerns. (Look at how much COBOL coding is still done worldwide.) That was my point. It does not imply that Clipper can not make great DOS .EXE files. >>Regarding specific personalities in the PC software world, let >>me make the following statement and see what happens: >> >> IMHO, Larry Heimendinger and Ed Esber have little in common with >> Bill Gates, Phillipe Kahn or Dave Fulton. > >I think they all have one thing in common, non of them have spoken to you >for 5 minutes. I was invited to A-T's dGURUs sessions in early 1988, with Larry Heimendinger as one of c. 25 other invitees. I have also spoken with him at COMDEX and at at least two L.A. Clipper User Group events. I must admit my contact with Ed Esber has been limited to brief exchanges. Still, it is my personal belief that their forte is in marketing, and not technical, aspects. I am sorry that my slight of "Leisure Suit Larry" seemed to touch off this whole thing, but, yes, we had "Mr. Ed", so touche. [Tom's defense of listing his credits deleted.] [Semi-rant by Tom deleted] My entire point was that Clipper is currently a niche product, but one with a very active and devoted following. (Hence my use of the word "cult".) I never said it is bad, nor that any product(s) Ashton-Tate (currently) sells can replace it. I do think people should look beyond line-by-line syntax comparision, however. (I personally think things such as ProGraph, Object Craft, Object Vision, Visual Basic, etc. represent the future of application development, and that distributed processing advances will make platform issues less important in the future.) There are a lot more factors involved in software selection than "We've got local vars and you don't!" type arguments. Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (06/16/91)
tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts) writes: >Like it or not, dBASE III PLUS is the de facto >standard of the X-base world. I would certainly agree that when people think xBase, they think of the dBase III programming language. I do not, however,believve that they think of the dBase III product itself. Generally, the dBase III language is the lowest common denominator of all xBase products. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / This space intentionally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / left blank... -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /