dcc003@muvms1.bitnet (04/24/89)
In article <45@mdi386.UUCP>, bruce@mdi386.UUCP (Bruce A. McIntyre) writes: > The current dBASE4 is the logical extension of what happens when marketing > controls the company, and not anyone else is considered. dBASE4 is a good > product IF: > 1. dbase is intended to be a bad clone of Paradox. > 2. you never intend to actually DO anything with it. In the few short months that I have been using dBase IV, I have been able to do more with it than the old dBase III+. In fact, once someone releases a decent compliler for it, I think some excellent applications will come out of it. > 4. You never saw dBASEIII or any of the clones. I have seen III, as well as foxbase, so far my vote still goes with IV. > But if you work for a big corporation, you will get dBASEIV, and put it on > the shelf and continue to use dBASEIII or Clipper or Foxbase. > I know these are rambling thoughts, but I get irrational every time I hear > that dBASE IV is such a great improved product. My only question for you is this, Have you even tried to use dBase IV? I see no sign of evidence in your RAMBLINGS to suggest that you have. So far, IV is an improvement over III. I will admit to a few noticable bugs, (but can you think of a product without them in the inital releases?) but so far it hasn't been a problem that couldn't be gotten around. Ken
bruce@mdi386.UUCP (Bruce A. McIntyre) (04/25/89)
In article <2132@muvms1.bitnet>, dcc003@muvms1.bitnet writes: > In article <45@mdi386.UUCP>, bruce@mdi386.UUCP (Bruce A. McIntyre) writes: > > The current dBASE4 is the logical extension of what happens when marketing > > controls the company, and not anyone else is considered. dBASE4 is a good > > product IF: > > 1. dbase is intended to be a bad clone of Paradox. > > 2. you never intend to actually DO anything with it. > In the few short months that I have been using dBase IV, I have been able to > do more with it than the old dBase III+. In fact, once someone releases a > decent compliler for it, I think some excellent applications will come out of > it. > > 4. You never saw dBASEIII or any of the clones. > I have seen III, as well as foxbase, so far my vote still goes with IV. > > > But if you work for a big corporation, you will get dBASEIV, and put it on > > the shelf and continue to use dBASEIII or Clipper or Foxbase. > > I know these are rambling thoughts, but I get irrational every time I hear > > that dBASE IV is such a great improved product. > > My only question for you is this, Have you even tried to use dBase IV? I see > no sign of evidence in your RAMBLINGS to suggest that you have. So far, IV is > an improvement over III. I will admit to a few noticable bugs, (but can you > think of a product without them in the inital releases?) but so far it hasn't > been a problem that couldn't be gotten around. > > Ken I have worked with Vulcan, dBASEII, dBASEIII, dBASEIII+, developers release AND dBASEIV. I have also worked with Oracle, Unify, Informix and Progress. I know the difference when it comes to building applications, which is how I make my living. For instance: In a large 1.75MB source application, origi- naly written in dBASEIII, the differences for execution of one main module is as follows: item language mach time 1. dBASEIII 10mhz286 3min15sec 2. dBASEIII+ 10mhz286 3min05sec 3. FoxBase 1.0 10mhz286 2min07sec 4. Clipper W87 10mhz286 0min57sec 5. dBASEIV 10mhz286 5min27sec 6. Clipper W87 4.7mhz88 2min45sec This explains why I feel the way I do. This code will be moved from the current base of Novell LAN systems to Multi-User UNIX under Foxbase+. By the way, we were unable to sucessfully run the application under dBASEIV on the lan, because the file locking problems caused delays that made the system unusable. Clipper is our vehicle of choice for LANs and PC-DOS. We have NOT moved to the latest version of Clipper for our biggest systems becasue of the problems with memory usage. We used the NO-LINK software to avoid the problem, but found the result not as fast as Foxbase, which in effect does the same thing. When Ashton Tate finally gets it right, it will be a good usable product, but that time isn't yet..... bruce -- ========================================================================= Bruce A. McIntyre, McIntyre Designs, Inc. VOICE(215)322-1895 143 Bridgetown Pike, Langhorne, Pa. 19047 DATA (215)357-2915 {wells|prapc2}!mdi386!bruce
mds@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Michael Siegel) (04/30/89)
> naly written in dBASEIII, the differences for execution of one main module > is as follows: > item language mach time > 1. dBASEIII 10mhz286 3min15sec > 2. dBASEIII+ 10mhz286 3min05sec > 3. FoxBase 1.0 10mhz286 2min07sec > 4. Clipper W87 10mhz286 0min57sec > 5. dBASEIV 10mhz286 5min27sec > 6. Clipper W87 4.7mhz88 2min45sec > This explains why I feel the way I do. This code will be moved from the > current base of Novell LAN systems to Multi-User UNIX under Foxbase+. > By the way, we were unable to sucessfully run the application under dBASEIV > on the lan, because the file locking problems caused delays that made the > system unusable. Clipper is our vehicle of choice for LANs and PC-DOS. We > have NOT moved to the latest version of Clipper for our biggest systems becasue > of the problems with memory usage. We used the NO-LINK software to avoid the > problem, but found the result not as fast as Foxbase, which in effect does > the same thing. > When Ashton Tate finally gets it right, it will be a good usable product, > but that time isn't yet..... > bruce > -- > ========================================================================= > Bruce A. McIntyre, McIntyre Designs, Inc. VOICE(215)322-1895 > 143 Bridgetown Pike, Langhorne, Pa. 19047 DATA (215)357-2915 > {wells|prapc2}!mdi386!bruce Do you have any feeling about application development time for these products. I have been developing systems in Paradox since it came out in 1985. Before that I worked with the dbase products. I am very please with the application development environment in Paradox. I think the query optimizer and thus performance may be slow in some instances, though probably not in comparison with dbase. Well just fishing for a reason to believe there is a better product. If you feel like taking the hook I would appreciate your comments. ---Michael (mds@bu-cs.bu.edu)
ede879g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Robert D. Nicholson) (05/02/91)
Has anybody had any experience with dbfast? Its suppose to be a dbase programmers enviroment for windows. I mean ms-windows.