Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!well!phred From: phred@well.sf.ca.us (Fred Heutte) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: R:BASE 3.1A ----- R:BASE IN GENERAL ********** Message-ID: <25752@well.sf.ca.us> Date: 28 Jun 91 07:16:58 GMT References: <18360@venera.isi.edu> <79429@brunix.UUCP> Lines: 50 Although there is obvious disdain for R:Base, I think you'll find any DBMS has its supporters and detractors. Like any *good* DBMS, R:Base has good points and some bad ones. The comments received so far indicate an incomplete understanding of those, however. The upgrade from version 2 to version 3 entailed a number of major changes for the program, including "full" compatibility with ANSI Level 2 SQL (let's not get into any arguments about what that means here ;-), a completely revamped menu system, much better forms (including pop-up menus, triggers, etc.) and so forth. The new version clearly is slower than version 2 for some functions and faster for others. Given the market it is aimed for -- mid-level developers and sophisticated ad-hoc end users -- R:Base is a very nice mainstream PC product. Unlike the xBase programs its SQL is inherent in the structure of the program (not a kludge pasted on top of a record-oriented processing approach), and the prompts, help system and so forth are nice if somewhat clunky. I've used R:Base for six years and find it to be a good general-purpose development environment. Even RBEDIT, the formerly horrible built-in program editor, is almost bearable now (although I still use QuickEdit). I use it for databases with 200 records and those with 200,000. I have sampled or done some fairly in-depth work with many other DBMS, including dBase, FoxBase/Pro, Informix for the PC (a real dog, although the Unix version is fine) and SuperBase. Microrim has had a varying commitment to R:Base over the years as its attention was drawn away to other projects (such as the ill-fated cross-platform Atlas project), but they keep coming back and improving R:Base itself (sometimes later rather than sooner, but that's hardly unusual for DBMS companies, as indicated in somewhat-fair-somewhat-unfair monikers like "Trashed'n'Late" ;-) Those of us who are more or less R:Base regulars have long want-lists, but then don't we all. Paradox is very nice for 'casual' use and in some cases is much faster than R:Base, but I find its menu/script approach z0Pw6q-9~a real set of handcuffs. Once you get into PAL, it's no easier than any other development language. For that matter, I find R:Base coding to be reasonably compact while retaining readability, although some of its constructs are incredibly irritating. I would be happy to correspond with anyone having further questions about R:Base or specific issues and comparisons to other DBMS platforms. Fred Heutte W3XY | Why make it simple and easy Sunlight Data Systems | when you can make it complex PO Box 40308 | and wonderful? Portland, Oregon 97240 | 503/241-0858 | phred@well.sf.ca.us |