Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!csn!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!pegasus!tleylan
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: PC Magazine skipped Clipper...
Message-ID: <1991May16.203441.5517@pegasus.com>
Date: 16 May 91 20:34:41 GMT
References: <282b61ab.e65@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <1991May14.203455.7766@pegasus.com> <24316@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Lines: 42

In article <24316@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit) writes:
>In article <1991May14.203455.7766@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>The benefits of Clipper 5.0 include "computer language" improvements which
>>I don't see coming from A-T and Fox.
>
>I think this is the jist of the argument - one man's "language improvement"
>is another man's worst nightmare. In the latest Data Based Advisor the
>editor quotes Larry Humdinger, the illustrious leader or Nantucket, as
>saying something to the effect that Clipper has "gone beyond (dBASE)". I
>agree with his sentiments exactly, thought I believe he and I would differ
>as to direction.
>
>You have to ask yourself "what constitues a language improvement"? As I
>(and the people who work for me) write and maintain more and more applications
>we are less and less inclined to define it as being "technically excellent",
>which seems to be Clippers only claim to fame these days. It surely isnt
>in productivity, after writing in FoxPro, CLipper is no fun. Earlier
>postings would indicate its not in bug-free code, so we'd better rule out
>reliability. <etc.>

Mark,

The man's name is Larry Heimendinger and he is the President and COO, he is
not the "illustrious leader or Nantucket".

As for language improvements, I didn't think it was totally up the users to
take a vote on things like that... I guess Northrop's latest jet designs are
worthless because I've flown ultra-lights and those Northrop planes have too
many lights and dials to be practical.

If Clipper isn't doing the job for you and FoxPro is then by all means switch
FoxPro doesn't do the job for me, so I use Clipper.  There is an appearance
of "were smart 'cause we use FoxPro and you're stupid because you don't" in
most FoxPro users' messages that I read.  I assure you that I'm as capable of
writing something in FoxPro as anyone on the planet but I choose not to.

As for productivity claims, I've heard all that nonsense before, if a person
understands their tools and plans accordingly they are productive, that goes
for any language and for any endeavor.  Clipper is the superior language,
FoxPro is the superior IDE, I don't use IDEs as a general rule.

tom