Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!mips!daver!kcdev!genco!rad
From: rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Oracle for the Mac
Message-ID: <30@genco.uucp>
Date: 10 Sep 90 23:31:00 GMT
References: <49079@seismo.CSS.GOV> <28@genco.uucp> <4331@etsu.CMI.COM>
Reply-To: rad@genco. (Bob Daniel)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO
Lines: 68

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