Xref: utzoo comp.databases:8337 comp.sys.mac.programmer:20367 comp.sys.mac.apps:3313 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!vsi1!daver!kcdev!genco!rad From: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Is 4d (Fourth Dimension) on Mac better than ALL? Message-ID: <177@genco.bungi.com> Date: 4 Jan 91 16:19:47 GMT References: <19464@netcom.UUCP> <1991Jan3.220828.2734@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) Followup-To: comp.databases Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO Lines: 90 In article <1991Jan3.220828.2734@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au writes: >In article <19464@netcom.UUCP>, lpendley@netcom.UUCP (Lou Pendley) writes: > >2) 4D >PROS >- some very sexy externals announced (haven't seen them yet) Yes, they include 4D Write and 4D Calc. 4D Write is a word processor that allows merging by directly selecting fields and files and inserting them into a letter. 4D Calc is a very nice spreadsheet that also ties right into 4D's database. A spreadsheet can be called immediatly from a 4D layout without leaving the layout. You can even define a spreadsheet on a field. When entering a formula in 4D Calc, popup lists of all the available files and fields are available to insert in the formula. Because 4D Calc and 4D Write are external code resources, these can be called just like any other 4D procedural command. >- I find the procedural language easy to use, given a Pascal background > >- the packaging of scripts behind buttons/fields etc. is good for reducing > size of code, and building responsive interfaces. > >- has a great user-defined search editor >CONS >- is ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTINGLY BUGGY - went from 2.0 to 2.0.11 before version 2.1 > which still has major bugs that can lose data (eg: a set of circumstances whic > fail to save changes the 2nd time into a record!) This statement doesn't apply because 2.1 is now released. Many problems have been fixed but I'd suggest staying away from subfiles. Subfiles is a poor approach. Like in any development system, there is usually a work around. In 4D, it is best to use linked files rather than subfiles. >- uses a single application file and single datafile which are both rather > fragile > >- data size grows rapidly I'll agree with ya there! >- the packaging of scripts etc. becomes a problem due to the lack of a global > search - it can be difficult to find code. The Cross Reference will be available soon. I have seen it, it is simply wonderful. I have not seen any other database language have anything like it. The CR is now online and you can easily find things without having to look at a printout. Of course you can print one out though. > >- complex screens become slow and VERY memory hungry The new 4D Compiler solves this problem! The Compiler speeds up the scripting language but doesn't have much effect on database performance. Overall, the compiler make a significant difference in screens and procedures. >- some of the best features (eg: user-modifiable lists, record sets) either > don't work or corrupt data in multi-user mode Multi user development is sensitive and takes experience to do if effectively. 4D in multi user is not as nice as others but works well if done correctly. Client/Server will be announced at SF Expo next week. > >- the user-level report-writer is a pathetic columnar effort. So who has a better USER report-writer? I think it's nice for those who are not programmers but need to generate a report. Advanced reports can be done by a developer in the procedure language. > >- it's not portable to anything!!! Yup, 4D should only be considered if you intend to stay on Mac. There are import/export utilities if data needs to be transferred however. >- enforces key disk copy protection (UNFORGIVEABLE!!!) Yeah, major sin! I not about to support that! >The bottom-line is: >FoxBASE for dBASE compatability, report-writer and writing cheap systems with no >fuss over runtimes. (and speed). Also useful as a sort of super-Filemaker > >Omnis for bigger systems, with more complex interfaces and transaction support > >4D possibly makes it in for VERY complex interfaces, otherwise the bin! > Unfortunately, your comparisons are based on 4D 2.0 and not 2.1. Also, you analysis does not include the tools available for 4D... Compiler, Externals, etc. I've been working with 4D, Omnis and Oracle (in UNIX). Bottom line is that 4D development can be completed faster (assuming enough experience) than the others and my 4D client's are more satisfied.