Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!well!kms From: kms@well.sf.ca.us (Kelly Stanonik) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: PC Magazine skipped Clipper... Message-ID: <24844@well.sf.ca.us> Date: 18 May 91 00:09:38 GMT References: <282b61ab.e65@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <1991May14.203455.7766@pegasus.com> <24316@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> Distribution: usa Lines: 55 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. >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 Well, sure, you can put the command "Browse" in your foxpro code and it pulls in Fox's dbf browse utility. The low-end curve on development can *initially* be less steep under FoxPro than Clipper, but I'd strongly disagree with the notion that FoxPro is somehow a totally more productive environment. Some of Clipper's recent language developments are real boons to productivity. The pre-processor is a godsend. The variable scoping makes it possible to write real black-box routines, and seems a lot cleaner (although I don't necessarily agree that it's the end of publics). Codeblocks are useful and the more I use them the cooler they get. Anyhow, all of this allows you to write code that's a lot more REUSUABLE than other dialects, and that means PRODUCTIVITY--maybe not in the first week, but definitely in the long run. >postings would indicate its not in bug-free code, so we'd better rule out >reliability. How about future directions? Ive been seriously worried Uh, name a language that is BUG FREE. There isn't one. 5.01, from most accounts is VERY solid. 5.0 wasn't--most folks weren't surprised by that, and it isn't good, but 5.01 is hardly an unreliable development platform (as you imply). >since I saw Brian Russell's very poor, very techie demo of the PM NFT >at the L.A. developers conference a couple of years ago. Has anyone even >heard them pay lip service to Windows or servers? If I want object-orientation >I'll go to a real OO language. I guess where 5.x is concerned, I'll just 5.x is not an object oriented language, and Nantucket says this very explicitely in the manual. I would imagine that when they release something they call an object oriented language it will be a "reall OO language". >say no. In the meantime we'll take Fox up on their $195 upgrade to 2.0 >and wait for Lesko et. al. to write for that environment. If you're waiting for Funcky2.0 for Foxpro 2.0 you could be waiting a long time. -- * "My God, it's full of stars" -- overheard in a hamburger hamlet in west la. * kms@well.sf.ca.us, or bix: kms, or prodigy (yuck!) cgpd47a * 2zip/arip cis: 74730,77 * free software snail: 4469 ventura cyn #e107, sherman oaks, ca 91423