Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au!a_dent From: a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Is 4d (Fourth Dimension) on Mac better than ALL? Message-ID: <1991Jan6.134754.2741@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> Date: 6 Jan 91 05:47:54 GMT References: <19464@netcom.UUCP> <1991Jan3.220828.2734@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> <177@genco.bungi.com> Followup-To: comp.databases Organization: University of Western Australia Lines: 86 In article <177@genco.bungi.com>, rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) writes: > 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. We are very happy with DB-Write from Metropolis Software (415 322 2001) which has been around for at least a year that I know of and implements merging. (See note at bottom re availability). > >>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 WRONG!!!! - The specific bug was encountered in 2.1 and was NOT there before (something that seems quite common with 4D). If you use a "modify record" as opposed to "modify selection", it doesn't save the second lot of changes. > approach. Like in any development system, there is usually a work around. In > 4D, it is best to use linked files rather than subfiles. The main point of subfiles is that they radically reduce programming time when you have a SMALL number of subrecords, and want a simple interface. In general you are quite right - there are lot of benefits in taking the time to write an interface using linked records, especially when you later want to relate your data in different ways. > >> >>- 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. Does it help when you have a lot of pages in a layout, each with many icon buttons? > 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 FoxBASE+/Mac - the same report-writer is available to the user with very little programmer effort ('modify report file_name') and it is a deciding factor for us in some jobs!! I've just been informed that Omnis 6 will include a decent ad-hoc report-writer, lets hope ACI are listening... > >>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. (NO) > analysis does not include the tools available for 4D... Compiler, Externals, > etc. We can't get them!!!! These things are announced in Australia at the same time in the US but a friend has been waiting 3 months for the Compiler. We can't make decisions for clients on the basis of vaporware - when these things arrive and if they are ok then we may change our mind (we have some complex Medical Information Management systems that we'd LOVE to compile). > > 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. How recent is your Omnis experience? We didn't consider it until now as it lacked a lot of interface tools. We have no complaints about the speed of implementation in 4D, I suspect it will still be faster than Omnis. The bugginess and difficulty of maintaining complex applications are one of the biggest drawbacks. Andy Dent A.D. Software phone 09 249 2719 Mac & VAX programmer 94 Bermuda Dve, Ballajura a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz Western Australia 6066 a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.AU (international)