Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!tomr From: tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: The Cult of Clipper (was: Re: PC Magazine skipped Clipper...) Message-ID: <1991May20.182201.20099@dbase.A-T.COM> Date: 20 May 91 18:22:01 GMT References: <1991May14.203455.7766@pegasus.com> <24316@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> <1991May16.203441.5517@pegasus.com> Reply-To: tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts) Organization: Ashton-Tate Lines: 110 In article <1991May16.203441.5517@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >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 don't see how you missed FoxPro's enhanced windowing functionality. Also, I hope people know that Ashton-Tate is working on far more things than just dBASE IV 1.2, 1.3, et cetera. Some of our R&D work involves things that are unlike any product we currently sell. >>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. > >Mark, > >The man's name is Larry Heimendinger and he is the President and COO, he is >not the "illustrious leader or Nantucket". Agreed. My paperback dictionary here defines illustrious as "reputable because of achievement or character". As such, to say that Mr. Heimendinger is not illustrious is one of the understatements of the year! :-) >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. I personally think that Dave Fulton could give you a run for your money there.... :-) (I don't want to sound critical, Tom, but there is rather a know-it-all tone in many of your postings, too!) >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. I would like to suggest that the relevant issue to most people in the real world is products, not languages. One can study things such as Oberon or Eiffel from a language design point of view, but their limited availability (as well as a limited talent pool to draw from) is probably what keeps them as fairly academic items at this point, compared to COBOL, C, etc. Similarily, one can admire Clipper's syntax extensions. (I personally feel 5.0 is somewhat of a mishmash of concepts from various sources, but then, this was true of dBASE II, as well. However, starting yet another endless language war is not what most people want to see in this group.) But, any language design or feature set is only as good as its actual implementation. Further, factors such as quality of documentation and tech support, as well as portability and the availability of skilled users affect the actual value of a product, unless you are off sitting on an island in the Pacific somewhere. (HHOJ, Tom L.!) Note that portability also encompasses the reusability of existing source code. I would like to suggest that a Clipper Cult is developing, and this is not really knocking Clipper, either. I feel that in the recent past, one could jump back and forth between Ashton-Tate products and various clone products such as dBXL, FoxBASE and, in its eariler versions, Clipper. However, with Clipper 5.0, as these recent series of postings seems to suggest, you really have to buy into it (the 5.0 style of development) and be prepared to stick with it. Currently, this also implies using products from a single vendor on a single platform. (Unless McMax counts! :-) ) I think people should be aware of this going in. Tom Leylan is arguably one of the most expert Clipper developers in the entire solar system. He may be having "no problems" but other people obviously are. This is not to knock Clipper, but to suggest to others that to get full benefit of 5.0 you will have to leave much of your dBASE mind set (and also code!) behind. Also, I feel that PC magazine's not including Clipper (following a precedent of PC Week some time before) as a DBMS package was justified. It really is more of a pure language, and should be compared to BASIC, C, and even the dBASE language itself. (btw, to contradict an earlier posting, the PC Mag review was co-ordinated by David Kalman, long time editor of Data Based Advisor. I doubt he will be reviewing PC Tools (or whatever else) next week, as an earlier post suggested.) Further, I feel these recent Clipper vs. FoxPro postings really are comparing apples to oranges. As Tom L. seems to suggest, it often is just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job based on your individual situation. However, I would like to stress that overall language design is just one factor in such an evaluation. But, as other forums have demonstrated for years, there is apparently no end to "my product is better than yours" debates.... Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com