🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jul31.174147.22204@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> sgrenander@NASAMAIL.JPL.NASA.GOV (Sven Grenander) writes:

>In article <1992Jul31.011004.3052@cornerstone.com>, aefron@cornerstone.com (Andrew Efron) writes:
>> 
>> Anyone have experience using both FoxBase and 4D?  Even better, has anyone 
>> switched from one to the other?  My company is a heavy user of Foxbase but 
>> I'd like to get them to look at something else--I find Foxbase rather quirky 
>> (i.e. doesn't always do what you tell it to do), too I-O intensive and since 
>> it only allows single-user access to database files, I end up running around 
>> the office trying to figure out who's got my file open.  I've heard some good 
HUH!
Fox is NOT single-user, you may have the single-user version!

Yes Fox is a little quirky - I've finally given up delaying things for FoxPro/
Mac and have released (one out now, the next in 2 weeks) a couple of XCMDS that
improve some matters:
1) a filter that lets you trap double-click, Enter, Return and/or Tab keypress
   in Browse (or anywhere) and convert them into a command-key sequence of 
   your choice (ie: you now get to double-click the Browse to go edit a record!)

2) A method of loading arrays and displaying scrolling lists in true Mac 
   dialogs that does NOT use Fox variable space and gives you multiple entry 
   selection, typing first few chars to jump down the list etc. LOTS faster 
   than doing it in Fox.

Based on these, I'm open to any and all suggestions about other things to do
(these are all ShareWare) as I don't believe we'll see Pro/Mac for at least 
another 6 months.

As far as the comparison goes, 4D is undoubtedly better for quickly putting
together a good-looking application of moderate size and complex interface,
provided you can put up with their runtime pricing (per unit instead of the 
Fox one-off), lousy runtime reportwriter and quirky language.

Complex systems in 4D are a maintenance disaster and it's multi-user 
performance is WOEFUL! The only way to fix it is to wait for their forthcoming
client-server architecture (rumoured to be $$$) or to use the EXCELLENT MSI 
Access product, which requires additional coding but allows you to set up your
own distributed client-server environment.
The past three years have shown 4D to be much more fragile than Fox in that
it is more likely to have damaging crashes and, when it does crash, you are
MUCH more likely to lose data and/or program (due to the 2-file storage
instead of separate data files).

I don't understand your I-O intensive comment.

On the downside, the 4D environment is a LOT slower to use (somethine like a 
IIci with a cache is my minimum recommended system), and lacks a fundamental
search and replace (you can't even do global replaces within a single           
procedure!). It has no online help and you can't remove "files" or fields
once specified (you can only change the field types).
 
There is a tool called 4D Mover (sep $$$) which allows you to copy layouts, file
defs etc. between databases but it has a few flaws.
                                            
There is an xref tool (again separate $$$) called 4D Xref. You have to exit
the application to use it but it is brilliant for tracking through a system.

>BTW, where did you hear good things about 4D ? was it from someone whose main
>objective was job security ?

Funnily enough, there was a large 4D/Oracle system written in Perth about 18
months ago (by somebody who used to employ me) - the government department
concerned eventually invented a support job and took the contractor responsible
on full-time salary!

Andy Dent (A.D. Software - Mac & VAX programming)
94 Bermuda Dve, BALLAJURA  Western Australia  6066
Phone/Fax: 09 249 2719 (local)  +619 249 2719 (International)
       Internet: dent@DIALix.oz.au    Compuserve: 100033,3241