Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!krisk From: krisk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Kris Klindworth) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: R: BASE 3.1A ----- R:BASE IN GENERAL ********** Keywords: R: Base DBMS SQL PROS CONS Message-ID: <1991Jun25.235542.17818@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 25 Jun 91 23:55:42 GMT References: Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 66 In article mekos@caen.engin.umich.edu (Howard S. Nichols Jr.) writes: > > I would like some feedback on the viablity of R:BASE 3.1a as the platform >for a large database project. Don't do it! You'll hate yourself when R:BASE-"The next generation" comes out. I started out working with R:BASE System V. I wrote and debugged upwards of 2000 lines of code. When I upgrade to R:BASE for DOS, I had to go through a lot of hassle debugging my programs again. Why? Because the new features added lots of new key words and required minor changes in syntax for commands which already existed. MICRORIM also did a major overhall of the menuing system as well, so I had to feel my way around that too. I switched over to Paradox 3.0 about the time R:BASE 3.0 came out. Some of my coworkers upgraded to R:BASE 3.0 and then to 3.1 a few months latter. Now they are suffering because of it. Again, NONE of their programs work (lots of nice new "features", pesky new key words, and capricious variations of syntax ;-). They are also having trouble getting use to the NEW-AND-IMPROVED user interface. Please don't get me wrong. R:Base 3.1 is better than R:Base for DOS, which was better than R:Base System V. From what I have seen of 3.1, it is an attractive package, but you say you have a large project. If MICRORIM stays true to form you'll have to repeat it when the next version of R:BASE comes out. If I haven't scared you enough about MICRORIM products, drop me a line and I'll go into my horror stories about working with their programming language. > Recomendations for an alternative DOS based relational database would >be appreciated also. Paradox seems to be a pretty stable platform and I have heard lots of good things about Foxbase. If you need SQL, Informix is a company with a good history on Unix boxes and reviewers have said that their MS-DOS product is a pretty good developers environment. Paradox is, of course, my personal preference on MS-DOS machines. Its user interface is so simple that I learned to use it in just 2 days, yet it is so powerful that I really haven't had to write much code. For things like updating batches of data, I simple turn on the record option and walk thru one example of the update process. Paradox records the key strokes as Paradox Application Language (PAL) commands in a script file. This file can then be replayed the for the next update. It can also be edited and combined with other recorded scripts. I have used the Personal Programmer applications generator on several occasions to set up menuing systems into which I patched these recorded scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______ Kris Klindworth Internet: krisk@ux1.uiuc.edu \ ( Database Programmer/Analyst Phone : (217)244-7120 / | Illinois State Water Survey US Mail : 2204 Griffith Dr ( x|<----------------------------------------------- Champaign, IL 61820 \ | ( ) Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here were mine. They are {_v_} not necessarily those of my employer and are subject to change without notice. :-)