timk@xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) (10/30/89)
In article <289@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >timk@xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes: >> First off I takes strong exception to relating Foxbase/+ >> to ANYTHING other than >> the high-quality dbaseIII+ compatable rdms it is. (And especially to viri of >> any sort!!) >> >> ...[stuff deleted]... >> >> In closing, before you condem a product (particularly one that's had so >> many glowing reports from almost unbiased sources :-) ) make SURE of your >> claims!! (You'll get less egg-foo-young on your face that way! :-) ) >> > >I wish people would "takes strong exception" when others "condem" dBASE IV. >After all, nothing is more "dbase" "compatable" than we are. I wish I'd saved the article in a major PC-ish mag that said that Foxbase/+ was more d-base III + compatable than dbIV! On the other hand, I can speak from personal exprience when to me the point is NOT so much compatability - but RELIABILITY. I don't know how many hours I've had to spend picking up pieces from crashed indexes, trashed dbf files, figuring out work-arounds to bugs in the dbIII+ products, etc etc ad nasea which I haven't had to worry about with *any* of the Foxbase products I've had to work with so far. At least with Fox the bugs I *have* run into were (in v2.0, haven't found any in 2.1) so obscure that they weren't nearly the concern that many, if not all the bugs in dbIII+ have been. Why is when I talk to fellow consultants around here that, in the words of one person "the next project I write will be in Pascal!"? (he hadn't heard about f-base yet) >The pervasiveness of the prevailing opinions about Fox and A-T have made >me more aware of pernicious attitudes in general. I'm re-thinking whether >Exxon was wrong to leave Alaska, or whether Jim Bakker really deserves >45 years. I know "everybody knows" these things are true, but what are >the facts? Who cares? The facts? Do you REALLY want me to post my personal experiences with your company's dbase III products? Do you really want to know how I feel about having to go to a client's site to fix a problem caused by trashed indexes or databases on the weekends during my time off? Or the hours I've had to spend finding out that index pointers didn't get changed whenever I did a seek (and had to put in a goto recno() after every seek) Or having to live without arrays, @ prompt/menu commands, dbedit(), memoedit(), user-defined functions, and SPEED? [note - dbedit and memoedit are clipper functions - I've got to write in that language too.] Where was A-T with fixes and updates when all these bugs were originally found out? Why did it take your company so long to come out with a technically innovative product, and then it turns out that that one has problems too? Why did A-T feel they had to sue Fox, instead of taking the safer route of developing a way to BEAT fox at the performance game? Where were the 'small' updates to the A-T dbase product that would include these little nice things like udfs, menu prompts, and the like? Alastair - this isn't personal, but there's no way I'm going to give ANYONE my respect, much less take any offence at criticisms leveled at a product that I can't trust. As a free-lance consultant a good part of my 'service' is having a reputation for delivering a quality product that WORKS, and works well for my clients. I like to sleep well at night, and one way I get that is by using safe products that I *know* work, are reliable, and won't play games with me about whether they want to work or not. If I have to worry about playing "avoid-the-bug" with ANY company's product then I just plain won't use it. It's that simple. I don't care if A-T was the first on the market with the dbII/III+/IV products - if I can't trust it and there are reliable alternatives I CAN trust and use without having to worry where I'm going to get bitten next - then I'll go there. Now admittedly there has been some rather unfair criticsim leveled at A-T by some people looking for attention - such as the alleged problem of the program that skips 'elses' in an 'if-else-then' statement. I've never had that problem, and the trashed dbf/ndx files problem are practically non- duplicateable - except that I *know* for a fact that once f-base was installed in dbIII+'s place the problem never showed it's face again! However, I guarantee you this - if A-T ever *does* come out with something that beats Fox, and is reliable, and is 'developer friendly' as well as 'user- friendly' then I *will* use it (and maybe even defend A-T too!). But NOT until! >Spare me the "glowing reports from almost unbiased sources," please. I'll >have the young egg-foo to go. I'd check in the mirror first, I think you've already been hit by the counter attendant! :-) > >/alastair/ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Timothy D. Kuehn timk@xenitec.on.ca | |TDK Consulting Services !watmath!xenitec!timk | |871 Victoria St. North, Suite 217A | |Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2B 3S4 (519)-741-3623 | |DOS/Xenix - SW/HW. uC, uP, DBMS. Satisfaction Guaranteed| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+