cooper@beno.CSS.GOV (Dale Cooper) (09/05/90)
Has anyone out there in netland had any experience with Oracle for the Mac?
I have heard minimal reviews word-of-mouth (you know - "it sucks" or "it's
the greatest thing since sliced bread") but I would like to hear some real
war stories from folks who have had extensive experience on this platform.
I am the DBA for our on-site Sun 4x, Sun 3x and DEC RISC platforms so I am
quite familiar with the product and some of its caveats. I would like to
hear from anyone who has had experience in bringing up a database on the Mac
as well as its reliability and performance. Any "gotchas" too.
Please email at cooper@seismo.css.gov
Thanks in advance...
/ /\_
| _//\####/
| | | | _^ _^_ |Dale Cooper
|||||||||| | (o)( O) |Center for Seismic Studies
--|||||||||||||||||----- _-_<>-_- -------------------|Arlington, VA
|||| || | | {::(::::} |
| | | \_@@\__/ ACK-PHFT!!! |Visit Beautiful
| @@| |Washington, DC...
@@| | then go home.rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (09/07/90)
In article <49079@seismo.CSS.GOV> cooper@beno.CSS.GOV (Dale Cooper) writes: > > >Has anyone out there in netland had any experience with Oracle for the Mac? > >I have heard minimal reviews word-of-mouth (you know - "it sucks" or "it's >the greatest thing since sliced bread") but I would like to hear some real >war stories from folks who have had extensive experience on this platform. > I have only briefly looked at Oracle for Mac (have been using Oracle on UNIX for about a year and a half) and am not too impressed. I saw it using Hypercard and Hypercard sucks. If you have a need to tie Mac into mainframe via Oracle then Oracle on Mac would be good. There is something that completely blows away Oracle on Mac. It's called 4th Dimension and it is light years ahead of any 4GL I have ever worked with. There is a 4D front end to Oracle but there is no need to use Oracle unless tieing into another platform using Oracle. 4th Dimension is by far the most user friendly and developer friendly and is much more powerful than Oracle. If there is something better, I definitely want to know about it.
kevin@cmi.com (Kevin Hegg) (09/10/90)
>From: rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) >light years ahead of any 4GL I have ever worked with. There is a 4D front >end to Oracle but there is no need to use Oracle unless tieing into >another platform using Oracle. > >4th Dimension is by far the most user friendly and developer friendly >and is much more powerful than Oracle. If there is something better, I >definitely want to know about it. There is something better. It is called 3rd generation languages (C, Pascal, etc.). I don't dispute that Oracle has problems, but 4th Dimension is inadequate for any serious project. Sure, if you want a simple record keeping database the 4D is OK, but if you try to develop a serious application 4D is a crippled product. I could write a dissertation on the problems with 4D, but here is a quick synopsis: 1) The cost is out of site. Everytime you want to do something you end up buying another tool. I understand this is status quo in the DBMS world but 4D doesn't have as much capabilities as these other DBMSs. 2) The forced development environment sucks. 4D says that everyone must develop and format their code according to their standards or too bad. For a 100-200 line program it is adequate, but if you try to develop a 10,000 or 50,000 line program then 4D's development environment fails. 3) There are significant incompatibilities between the way programs run under the development environment and the runtime environment. I know, ACIUS has fixed many of these, but they still exist and are mostly undocumented to the general public. If you want to pay more money, then you can get developer information. Sorry, but I expect that when I buy a development system that I am entitled to that information for no further charge. 4) 4D can handle a small number of objects on the screen OK, but if you want to develop a serious application you will probably need more than a small number of objects. 4D falls flat on its face when trying to handle a moderate amount of objects at once. 5) 4D's programming language is unacceptable. Once again, ACIUS ignores the standards the rest of the world has mandated and forces you to learn a new programming language. I am not against learning new programming languages, if I can get added benefit. However, 4D's prog. language is weak and is a step backwards. I could go on and on, but I'll stop for now. Anyway, this is my opinion. Kevin Hegg, EDS Corp - Center for Machine Intelligence 2001 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Phone: (313) 995-0900 Internet: kevin@cmi.com Applelink: D5990
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (09/11/90)
In article <4331@etsu.CMI.COM> kevin@cmi.com (Kevin Hegg) writes: > >There is something better. It is called 3rd generation languages (C, >Pascal, etc.). I don't dispute that Oracle has problems, but 4th >Dimension is inadequate for any serious project. Sure, if you want a >simple record keeping database the 4D is OK, but if you try to develop a >serious application 4D is a crippled product. I could write a >dissertation on the problems with 4D, but here is a quick synopsis: > > 2) The forced development environment sucks. 4D says that everyone must > develop and format their code according to their standards or too bad. > For a 100-200 line program it is adequate, but if you try to develop a > 10,000 or 50,000 line program then 4D's development environment fails. Being forced to program with SQL as a programming (Oracle) language has alot to be desired, even in Forms 3.0. SQL is a query language not a procedure language. I'd rather deal with sets and subsets of records in a procedure lanuage than hassle with SQL selections. A friend of mine is a 4D developer and has written large scale applications with several hundred procedures that have not "failed" (whatever you mean by that). > 3) There are significant incompatibilities between the way programs run > under the development environment and the runtime environment. I know, > ACIUS has fixed many of these, but they still exist and are mostly > undocumented to the general public. If you want to pay more money, then > you can get developer information. Sorry, but I expect that when I buy > a development system that I am entitled to that information for no > further charge. Version 2.1 has solved many of those problems but I never found it to be a serious problem. > 4) 4D can handle a small number of objects on the screen OK, but if > you want to develop a serious application you will probably need more > than a small number of objects. 4D falls flat on its face when trying > to handle a moderate amount of objects at once. Do what? I can have dozens of objects and it doesn't fall flat on its face. Have your worked much with 4D? Have you tried the compiler? > 5) 4D's programming language is unacceptable. Once again, ACIUS ignores the > standards the rest of the world has mandated and forces you to learn a new > programming language. I am not against learning new programming > languages, if I can get added benefit. However, 4D's prog. language is > weak and is a step backwards. Once again, I wouldn't call SQL programming standard. At least 4D is a procedure language. And you have more flexibility on a selection of records in 4D. Also, the ability of externals give you the power of a 3GL. > >I could go on and on, but I'll stop for now. Anyway, this is my opinion. I have been working on an Oracle project for 6 months that could have been done in 2 months in 4D. I'm not really all that against Oracle and have come to terms with its limitations but 4D is definitely more developer friendly and user friendly. Bottom line is that we have a great looking product that is easy to use in less time. Bottom line #2 is that our 4D clients are by far happier than our Oracle clients. (That's a tad unfair though because our 4D clients are using Macs and the Oracle clients are on UNIX.) You might reconsider 4D for serious projects because there are several done in 4D that Oracle simply couldn't touch. I know, I've worked in both and know developers who have worked in both since the two have existed. Sorry to have started a flame, but it's my opinion too :) moof moof
kevin@cmi.com (Kevin Hegg) (09/11/90)
>From: rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) > >Being forced to program with SQL as a programming (Oracle) language has >alot to be desired, even in Forms 3.0. SQL is a query language not a >procedure Believe me, I am not saying that SQL is the best solution for all applications. I have developed applications with Oracle, Ingres, Sybase, and SQL/DS and they are adequate for certain types of data manipulation, but not all. >I'd rather deal with sets and subsets of records in a procedure >lanuage than hassle with SQL selections....At least 4D is a >procedure language. Yes, 4D is a procedural language, but it is far less powerful than other procedural languages (C, Pascal, etc). Also, almost every RDBMS is accompanied with a procedural language, so 4D does not have an advantage there. >Version 2.1 has solved many of those problems but I never found it to be >a serious problem. But they haven't solved all of them. At a certain point (and numerous bug fix releases) you get a little tired of waiting for something that you have already paid for. Also, if ACIUS were a little more forthcoming with the problems and some work arounds then it would be a little more acceptable. >Do what? I can have dozens of objects and it doesn't fall flat on its >face. Have your worked much with 4D? Have you tried the compiler? When it takes a few seconds to repaint the screen (with dozens of objects) for an interactive application, then that is unacceptable. With the same amount of programming effort in C I can get the same look with almost instantaneous screen repainting. The compiler was not even an option until just recently. I am still trying to decide whether it is worth the investment. >You might reconsider 4D for serious projects because there are several >done in 4D that Oracle simply couldn't touch. I know, I've worked in both >and know developers who have worked in both since the two have existed. We have not totally abandoned 4D, but it is rapidly falling out of grace. We try to objectively look at each project and determine what the successes and failures were and whether we received an adequate return on our investment. With 4D we feel that we have not received a return on our investment. I don't doubt that people are and will continue developing with 4D, but our experience tells us that it is a poor development tool for non-trivial applications. I know most people want to believe that their application is non-trivial, but in many cases this just isn't so. 4D will probably satisfy those with trivial data manipulation tasks. Kevin Hegg, EDS Corp - Center for Machine Intelligence 2001 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Phone: (313) 995-0900 Internet: kevin@cmi.com Applelink: D5990
jay@argosy.UUCP (Jay O'Conor) (09/12/90)
In article <4359@etsu.CMI.COM> kevin@cmi.com (Kevin Hegg) writes: < stuff deleted > >We have not totally abandoned 4D, but it is rapidly falling out of grace. >We try to objectively look at each project and determine what the >successes and failures were and whether we received an adequate return on >our investment. With 4D we feel that we have not received a return on our >investment. I don't doubt that people are and will continue developing >with 4D, but our experience tells us that it is a poor development tool >for non-trivial applications. I know most people want to believe that >their application is non-trivial, but in many cases this just isn't so. 4D >will probably satisfy those with trivial data manipulation tasks. Hmmm... Either you're missing something or many people are performing magic with 4D every day. One such case is a company started by former coworkers of mine in Maryland. Their company now has several commercial packages written in 4D. They swear by (and at) it. They're not blind to it's shortcomings. They've learned 4D enough to understand it's limitations and avoid them. It's really not different from any interpreted environment. Personally, if there isn't a way to see the assembler source, I don't want to touch it. I have been around enough though to realize that not everyone feels that same way. These friends of mine left their comfortable jobs to create a startup company based on creating products in 4D. They _are_ sucessful. I would say that being able to create a startup company around 4D represents a very good return on investment. I'm sure there are other 4D sucess stories like this out there. It's necessary to recognize that the tools are different. Different does not mean inadequate. As I expressed before, being able to see assembler source is one tool that I _personally_ find indespensible. Other people are comfortable with other tools. This is fine. Unless you're willing to learn the tools it'll be a problem for you. This is true of anything. Simply based on the existance of sucessful companies creating products in 4D, I'd have to conclude that 4D is OK, and you are unwilling to learn it to the extent necessary (no flame intended). >Kevin Hegg, EDS Corp - Center for Machine Intelligence >2001 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 >Phone: (313) 995-0900 Internet: kevin@cmi.com Applelink: D5990 Jay O'Conor MasPar Computer Corporation jay@maspar.com
kevin@cmi.com (Kevin Hegg) (09/12/90)
>regarding: idiot!jay (Jay O'Conor) >Hmmm... Either you're missing something or many people are performing >magic with 4D every day. One such case is a company started by former >coworkers of mine in Maryland. Their company now has several commercial >packages written in 4D. They swear by (and at) it. They're not blind >to it's shortcomings. They've learned 4D enough to understand it's >limitations and avoid them... My experience and opinion is that 4D has far more shortcomings than virtues. In this day and age when there are so many powerful development tools, why should anyone be satisfied with an inferior product. >I have been around enough though to realize that not everyone feels that >same way. These friends of mine left their comfortable jobs to create a >startup company based on creating products in 4D. They _are_ sucessful. >I would say that being able to create a startup company around 4D >represents a very good return on investment. I'm sure there are other 4D >sucess stories like this out there. I don't dispute this at all, but their success in the business world does not mean that 4D is a good product. It simply means they are good businessmen. Sometimes your customer mandates a particular tool, so if you want the business you do what he says. Sometimes your customer insists he must have the application written on top of a DBMS (even though that is not necessary), so if you want the business you do what he says. Even with 4D's problems it is still ranks high among Mac DBMSs. Sometimes developers are unwilling to learn to use more powerful tools, so in order to survive they learn work arounds to deficiencies in their current tools. >Simply based on the existance of sucessful companies creating products in >4D, I'd have to conclude that 4D is OK, and you are unwilling to learn it >to the extent necessary (no flame intended). I think the result remains to be seen. ACIUS is having enough financial problems that their future is not certain. With Apple's introduction of virtual memory, Unix, more powerful machines, etc. you will see the big companies such as Oracle, etc. port to the Mac. Whether they have a superior product or not they will squeeze ACIUS. As far as learning 4D, I know it well enough to go head to head with any other 4D developer. Believe me, I am always on the look out for better development tools. After becoming proficient in 4D and then comparing it to other development tools that I have at my disposal, it just turned out to be more inferior. You are right in one sense, I did not adapt my 4D development environment to the point of overcoming all of my critcisms. But, the reason for this is that would have been unnatural and unproductive. I don't believe in reinventing the wheel, if necessary. Kevin Hegg, EDS Corp - Center for Machine Intelligence 2001 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Phone: (313) 995-0900 Internet: kevin@cmi.com Applelink: D5990
lwk@engin.umich.edu (Woody Kellum) (09/12/90)
In article <28@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes: > >4th Dimension is by far the most user friendly and developer friendly >and is much more powerful than Oracle. If there is something better, I >definitely want to know about it. Oracle has a backend product that will interface 4D with a remote Oracle server, which has been used around here with some success. It's called 'Oracle for 4D' - Woody -- Woody Kellum Internet: lwk@caen.engin.umich.edu