Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tate!tomr From: tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: The Cult of Clipper (was: Re: PC Magazine skipped Clipper...) Message-ID: <1991Jun13.194852.1941@dbase.a-t.com> Date: 13 Jun 91 19:48:52 GMT Article-I.D.: dbase.1991Jun13.194852.1941 References: <1991Jun5.112441.4573@pegasus.com> <1991Jun7.220945.18253@dbase.A-T.COM> <1991Jun10.021431.134@pegasus.com> Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 95 Originator: tomr@dbase Nntp-Posting-Host: dbase Tom - The tone and content of your reply does more to validate my original comments than anything I can say. Still, I would like to clarify a few things: In article <1991Jun10.021431.134@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.220945.18253@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes: >> >>1. Language features, to the actual user, are only as good as >>their implementation. > >I didn't realize that I had a vote whether C should have pointers or not, if >they aren't implemented to my liking then it's a lousy feature ? So does a >tree falling in the forest only make noise if Tom Rombouts hears it ? > >You don't seem able to separate computer science from personal belief that's >what gave us the crap known as dBASE today. Let _me_ explain cs: language design, language implementation and software available for actual use are three distinct things. Since you choose to sling mud, let me respond in kind: At this point, Clipper 5.0/5.01 is still unproven to many developers. I never said it did not attempt to offer valuable new features. (btw, without that "crap" of dBASE and its original installed base, Clipper would not exist today.) >>2. Clipper has moved away from the dBASE/xBASE "standard" and >>is a product for advanced users. > >dBASE is no more a standard than Coca-Cola, it's "common", it's "popular" >but it isn't a "standard" unless you're willing accept that not being able >to read at age 16 is "standard"... it happens to be common. Standards are >usually agreed upon, dBASE fell into it and others followed but you go on >kidding yourself that it got there by virtue of being the best. This is exactly why I put "standard" in quotes. Still, it is my understanding that about 3 million units of dBASE III PLUS were shipped worldwide. Like it or not, dBASE III PLUS is the de facto standard of the X-base world. Add to this dBASE IV, FoxBASE/FoxPro, WordTech products and even Recital, and that is quite a large base of installed products that run very similar source code. (Note well that I am not saying that dBASE/X-base is necessarily the "best" language or environment, either.) Compare this with c. 200,000 units of Clipper. (Adam Green's estimate on Saturday in Woodland Hills.) Double that if you like for the sake of argument. I would be the first to agree that popularity often has little correlation with quality. But to some sites, the choice between maintaining or using "classic" dBASE code vs. Clipper 5.0 style code, which appears as a cross between C and dBASE, will be influenced by the ease of finding people to maintain it or source portability concerns. (Look at how much COBOL coding is still done worldwide.) That was my point. It does not imply that Clipper can not make great DOS .EXE files. >>Regarding specific personalities in the PC software world, let >>me make the following statement and see what happens: >> >> IMHO, Larry Heimendinger and Ed Esber have little in common with >> Bill Gates, Phillipe Kahn or Dave Fulton. > >I think they all have one thing in common, non of them have spoken to you >for 5 minutes. I was invited to A-T's dGURUs sessions in early 1988, with Larry Heimendinger as one of c. 25 other invitees. I have also spoken with him at COMDEX and at at least two L.A. Clipper User Group events. I must admit my contact with Ed Esber has been limited to brief exchanges. Still, it is my personal belief that their forte is in marketing, and not technical, aspects. I am sorry that my slight of "Leisure Suit Larry" seemed to touch off this whole thing, but, yes, we had "Mr. Ed", so touche. [Tom's defense of listing his credits deleted.] [Semi-rant by Tom deleted] My entire point was that Clipper is currently a niche product, but one with a very active and devoted following. (Hence my use of the word "cult".) I never said it is bad, nor that any product(s) Ashton-Tate (currently) sells can replace it. I do think people should look beyond line-by-line syntax comparision, however. (I personally think things such as ProGraph, Object Craft, Object Vision, Visual Basic, etc. represent the future of application development, and that distributed processing advances will make platform issues less important in the future.) There are a lot more factors involved in software selection than "We've got local vars and you don't!" type arguments. Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com