jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (05/11/91)
I was excited to see the cover of my latest PC Magazine which said, Database Clout! PC Labs tests 15 Relational Powerhouses. But I was disappointed to find that nowhere was Clipper mentioned. I am interested in rewriting a business application that is currently written in a 3GL business language into a database application. Clipper is currently my platform of interest, and I had hoped to get some insight. Anyone want to try to tell where Clipper would fall in the PC Mag ratings? -- John Dudeck "You can only push jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu simplicity so far." ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- AT&T promotional brochure
dave@kharma (05/12/91)
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: > > > I was excited to see the cover of my latest PC Magazine which said, > Database Clout! PC Labs tests 15 Relational Powerhouses. But I was > disappointed to find that nowhere was Clipper mentioned. I am interested > in rewriting a business application that is currently written in a 3GL > business language into a database application. Clipper is currently > my platform of interest, and I had hoped to get some insight. > > Anyone want to try to tell where Clipper would fall in the PC Mag ratings? Nowhere. They didn't succumb to the urge to purchase a megabucks full-page ad this month. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - isc-br!tau-ceti!dogear!kharma!dave [dave@kharma] Dave Laird, SysOp: kharma The Computer Concern, Springdale, WA 258-7109 or 1-800-786-7109 kharma: 509-233-8474 (Local from Spokane Area) 24hrs 1200-14400 (HST)
tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) (05/15/91)
In article <282b61ab.e65@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: > >I was excited to see the cover of my latest PC Magazine which said, >Database Clout! PC Labs tests 15 Relational Powerhouses. But I was >disappointed to find that nowhere was Clipper mentioned. I am interested >in rewriting a business application that is currently written in a 3GL >business language into a database application. Clipper is currently >my platform of interest, and I had hoped to get some insight. > >Anyone want to try to tell where Clipper would fall in the PC Mag ratings? > John, Most of the Clipper programmers have learned to live with not seeing the product in comparisons in InfoWorld, PC Week and I guess now PC Magazine. Much of the problem (I believe) is generated by a lack of an interactive mode which after reading the notes on the back of the box is where a typical "reviewer" goes. They aren't likely to know all the packages and if they know dBASE maybe they run it through Clipper and base their review on that failing to notice that minor modifications can improve things considerably. The benefits of Clipper 5.0 include "computer language" improvements which I don't see coming from A-T and Fox. If one is designing an end-user product one tosses in a mouseable front end and another dozen built-in functions if one is improving a language one adds, lexical variable scoping, code-blocks virtual memory management and encourages people to abandon error-prone activities like the CLEAR ALL command and the use of PUBLIC and PRIVATE variables. These kinds of benefits aren't glamorous enough for a reviewer at a magazine to consider. You know they review PC-Tools one week and Borland C++ the next and I'm certain (he says with tongue in cheek) that they equally expert in both. tom (ex-Senior Systems Analyst / Nantucket Corporation)
maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>) (05/16/91)
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 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. How about future directions? Ive been seriously worried since I saw Brian Russell's very poor, very techie demo of the PM NFT at the L.A. developers conference a couple of years ago. Has anyone even heard them pay lip service to Windows or servers? If I want object-orientation I'll go to a real OO language. I guess where 5.x is concerned, I'll just say no. In the meantime we'll take Fox up on their $195 upgrade to 2.0 and wait for Lesko et. al. to write for that environment. Mark Aurit
tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) (05/17/91)
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 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". 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. 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. tom
kms@well.sf.ca.us (Kelly Stanonik) (05/18/91)
maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>) 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. >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 Well, sure, you can put the command "Browse" in your foxpro code and it pulls in Fox's dbf browse utility. The low-end curve on development can *initially* be less steep under FoxPro than Clipper, but I'd strongly disagree with the notion that FoxPro is somehow a totally more productive environment. Some of Clipper's recent language developments are real boons to productivity. The pre-processor is a godsend. The variable scoping makes it possible to write real black-box routines, and seems a lot cleaner (although I don't necessarily agree that it's the end of publics). Codeblocks are useful and the more I use them the cooler they get. Anyhow, all of this allows you to write code that's a lot more REUSUABLE than other dialects, and that means PRODUCTIVITY--maybe not in the first week, but definitely in the long run. >postings would indicate its not in bug-free code, so we'd better rule out >reliability. How about future directions? Ive been seriously worried Uh, name a language that is BUG FREE. There isn't one. 5.01, from most accounts is VERY solid. 5.0 wasn't--most folks weren't surprised by that, and it isn't good, but 5.01 is hardly an unreliable development platform (as you imply). >since I saw Brian Russell's very poor, very techie demo of the PM NFT >at the L.A. developers conference a couple of years ago. Has anyone even >heard them pay lip service to Windows or servers? If I want object-orientation >I'll go to a real OO language. I guess where 5.x is concerned, I'll just 5.x is not an object oriented language, and Nantucket says this very explicitely in the manual. I would imagine that when they release something they call an object oriented language it will be a "reall OO language". >say no. In the meantime we'll take Fox up on their $195 upgrade to 2.0 >and wait for Lesko et. al. to write for that environment. If you're waiting for Funcky2.0 for Foxpro 2.0 you could be waiting a long time. -- * "My God, it's full of stars" -- overheard in a hamburger hamlet in west la. * kms@well.sf.ca.us, or bix: kms, or prodigy (yuck!) cgpd47a * 2zip/arip cis: 74730,77 * free software snail: 4469 ventura cyn #e107, sherman oaks, ca 91423