Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd From: awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Ashton-Tate (was: Judge reverses ruling) Summary: dBASE IV 1.1 has "filtered indices" Keywords: dBASE IV, Ashton-Tate Message-ID: <1991Apr29.211326.8090@dbase.a-t.com> Date: 29 Apr 91 21:13:26 GMT References: <1991Apr24.160831.9828@dbase.A-T.COM> <182@ahmcs.uucp> Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 73 In article <182@ahmcs.uucp>, alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz) writes: > In article <1991Apr24.160831.9828@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > > to the effect that we should now settle with Fox and get on with competing > > in the marketplace, not the courts. > > Now I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll find many people willing to cheer > with you... Well, everyone seems to say that we should compete in the marketplace. Or are you just saying that everyone wants us to lose the suit? I've said that I wouldn't have sued Fox, but since we have and we're a publicly traded company, how can we do anything but proceed? > I find myself in a position of HAVING to convert a Fox application to > dBase IV because it needs to run on VMS. Is that a "thanks for making dBASE IV cross-platform" I hear? :-). Did you know that compiled .dbo files are binary-compatible so you can develop on a PC or a Macintosh for a VAX target or vice versa? You're welcome :-). > Thank for > Step IVward, which takes care of the change in array syntax... You're welcome again :-) Not taking the place of the , but Ashton-Tate publishes Step IVward. > ...(when was the last > time you saw a high-level langauge compiler or interpreter change a primary > syntax rule ?). Ask Fox why they don't support the language as defined by the industry leader. They had arrays first, but we did them right and they failed to change theirs. (Hold your flames--I'm being intentionally provocative here; Fox is a fine product and their arrays are wonderful, okay?) > It sure is a pain to try and come up with substitutes for things that just > aren't in dBase IV like filtered indices, ALL those SYS functions (only some > of which have similar equivalents), etc. Yes, isn't ? SYS() a fabulously mnemonic language construct? What do they have in SYS() that you need? Tell us and we'll put it in and then you'll have it on all the platforms that we support (unlike FoxPro's incompatibilities with their Macintosh version). dBASE IV v1.1 supports "filtered indices" with the FOR clause added to the INDEX command. > I have little sympathy for a company that deliberately releases a product that > doesn't have features that competing products have had for years. You mean Fox failing to support MDX files? or QBE? or the dBASE/SQL? (Just flaming--it feels good now, but you'll jump all over me tomorrow :-). > This suit, > from the beginning, seems like nothing but sour grapes. That's how it seemed to me, too, which is why I wouldn't have done it. What people forget is that we're suing them over the product they sold in 1986 which was an absolutely exact clone of dBASE III PLUS. They copied every character on every screen, the exact wording of every error message, everything. The money from that let them develop products that were at least somewhat different. If you develop software, imagine how you'd react to competing with your own product in the marketplace. /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.