Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!ctrsol!ginosko!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd
From: awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Why is dBase IV so big?
Summary: dBASE IV has a lot of features
Keywords: dBase III, dBaseIV
Message-ID: <275@dbase.UUCP>
Date: 10 Oct 89 23:34:24 GMT
References: <2036@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
Organization: Ashton Tate Devlopment Center Glendale, Calif.
Lines: 26

In article <2036@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) writes:
> Am I alone in feeling that dBase IV attempts to be everything to 
> everyone?  I would like to know how Ashton Tate developed the 
> specifications for dBase IV.  dBase III is relatively simple and
> elegant, and can be copied to a ramdisk for greatest efficiency.
> This is simply not possible with dBase IV.   Who is the IV product for,
> anyway?  Will dBase V be 10 times the size of dBase IV?  Is the
> product driven by featuritis syndrome?

dBASE IV is definitely feature-driven, at least from my perspective.
No one ever said to me, "let's see what features we can take out of
dBASE III PLUS to make dBASE even smaller!"  dBASE has a long history
of new features and expanded horizons--each new release is bigger and
more feature-laden than the past.  I think there is definitely a 
recognition now that we need to manage this size and complexity; the
dBASE IV of 1990 will probably reflect this.  Consider operating
systems.  Forgetting mainframes, look how much bigger MS-DOS 3.0 is
than MS-DOS 1.1, which was really fat relative to CP/M.  Are you 
familiar with what Apple is proposing for System 7.0?  Would you 
call Unix "everything to everyone?"  I don't think people want it
any other way.

/alastair/

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for Ashton-Tate, really.  It may sound
like that, but I'm not authorized by anyone for anything.