🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <701@poietics.uucp>, Chris Gayler <cng@poietics.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <Cow8r4.1x4@gcs.com> mark@gcs.com (Mark Bolzern) writes:

>>True, an unlimited user version is around $3000, but it emits code which
>>can be run on any other Unix system of the same type as the one which
>>compiled it.

Very reasonable for a "Software Machine!" Compare to Informix or Oracle
where a "workable" development kit will run $20K++

>Let's see .. Runtime fees = (no. of concurrent users) * (no. of platform
>types?) Which equals NO RUNTIME fees in your book. Truthful advertising?
>I don't think so.

Have you ever REALLY been a software developer?? I suppose if you wrote
something for a P.C you would expect the MAC port for free. There are many
flavors of Unix. With the SCO exe's you would have more than enough base
for your new App. Yes I call it NO RUN TIME! No Royalties!

>>You develop with an unlimited license on SCO, and then copy the created
>>executable ANYWHERE, to any system that can execute that binary.


>The whole point of object-oriented development environment is to let you
>dramatically speed up the development process.

Perhaps you mean 4GL or CASE ? If there was "A whole Point" to OOP, it would
more likely be "Reusable" code segs or "Tool kits". (UDF's?) There isn't
any connection between OOP and Inital design (Where the REAL work / time
should be spent. My 10 year old son can code.

>Next, budget several hundred hours of your own time writing the integrity
>and multiuser code to do what a good RDBMS does for you automatically in
>the first place.

If you believe what you just wrote about "Automatic integrity and multiuser
code", you NEED (Deserve) Recital :) Think about it ... if it does things
"Automatically", is it doing it YOUR WAY or are you learning to do it IT'S
way??? Canned crap is what you get. A development system can only act on
syntax NOT on intent.

>Total Xbase commands in Recital - 1442
>Total Xbase commands in '87 Clipper - 347
Ah.. You forgot #command = INFINATE. You made great point though.. Recital
ALLOWS you to do 1442 things.. how quaint... With Flagship / C , never
again will you need to "Fear the WALL" Doubt if you know what that is
though. :)

>You cannot do ad-hoc views in Flagship because it isn't an RDBMS.

No, YOU "cannot do ad-hoc views in Flagship", I, can do ANYTHING you
can describe in F.S/Unix/Clipper.

>What is more illuminating here is that Flagship's translation seems
>non-optimal for the higher-level database operations. But my purpose
>here is not to slam Flagship but to uncover your hype around it.

Your "Purpose" seems very Personal from here. Sour grapes?? It is not
our fault you are a "Wanna Be" Unix Hack. If you can't run with BIG
dogs, Stay on the porch.....

>In any event, Recital and some other X-base development platforms also
>are available with C libraries. Finally, most developers don't write
>X-base apps in C - they write in X-base languages using real X-base
>development environments, not debuggers.

Can you even spell COMPILER?? "Where's my dot prompt?" :)


>>It has a nice built in debugger
>>and you are free to maintain Xbase code.  You do not ever have to touch
>>"C" code unless you want to.  If you do want "C" the flexibility is there
>>to do part of your code in "C" and part in FlagShip without having to drop
>>out of the Xbase language.  If you use the built in debugger, and find
>>a problem you are free to change variables, write things into database
>>fields
>>or just about any other manipulation you like.  Since FlagShip and the
>>make system work so well together, a recompile for a change needn't take
>>more than seconds.

>
>This would be trivially useful. You need a source (Xbase) code interpreter
>to debug, much less run, Xbase source. Without it, if you find a bug in the
>compiled code that's caused by an error in your source code, you presumably
>have no easy way of finding just what line in the Xbase source caused this
>problem.

This guy MUST be pulling our chains! Real Power Programs are always interpre-
ted!!! HAaaaaaa ROFL :) :)

>Recital does not charge you royalties on your own code. Like any robust
>product of this type, it requires you to use a run-time RDBMS.

Tell me about your "Robust" Run-Time when you "Hit the Wall" or when
your cool Run-Time vendor does "Go-Bust" ??

>My problem is not with Clipper - it's a good DOS program. My problem is
>with the way you're representing Flagship. Flagship is NOT Clipper and
>does not have Clipper development features. And it gets tiring that you
>continue to try to blur that issue.

Just what the hell are you talking about in Clipper and these so called
"Development Features"??? I make a living in Clipper and UNIX. Are you
talking about "Rmake"?? As in the "Make" system from UNIX?? The Linker?
Perhaps "PE" for editing?? "DBU"??? What color is the sky on your planet?

>Finally, I wouldn't take the time to write all this except that I really
>think this product is being fraudulently presented as something it is not,
>and I don't want to see people get burned.

Thanks Dad! Now put on your little white jacket.......

>-- Chris

>> Mark

If any Adults (NOT DULTS! Chris) have any thoughts regarding the
biggest thing to happen in the world of Unix App. Devl. I would enjoy
sharing with you where I can. No, I Don't work for Flagship. IT will
work for you though :)

Thanks for the "Vent Time"