Discussion:
What is Blinker?
(too old to reply)
Ben Rankin
2003-12-08 16:32:08 UTC
Permalink
I've been looking around on the web trying to get an overview of Clipper
development.

Here's what I know so far:
Clipper is a language that is/was useful and common to program apps that
manipulate xBase tables among other things.

CA-Clipper is a complier which was very popular and is no longer supported
by CA.

xBase++ is a new complier which can compile to 32 bit code

Harbour is an open source project which is trying to duplicate CA-Clipper
functionality in several OSes.

My questions:

What is Blinker?
Is there an online source for a beginning Clipper programmer?

Thanks,
BR
Ray Marron
2003-12-08 17:14:25 UTC
Permalink
"Ben Rankin" <***@gameboard.com> wrote in message news:3fd4a6eb$0$32880$***@newscene.com...
...
Post by Ben Rankin
What is Blinker?
Blinker is a commercial linker for Clipper (among other languages). It is
generally considered _the_ Clipper linker.
http://www.blinkinc.com
Post by Ben Rankin
Is there an online source for a beginning Clipper programmer?
Not really, but there are lots of code examples available. Start at the
Oasis, and follow all the links you find from there:
http://www.the-oasis.net

Other than that, just ask here.

P.S. If you're looking into this for any reason other than as a hobby or to
do maintenance work, you've been lead down the wrong path.
--
Ray Marron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-08 17:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Marron
P.S. If you're looking into this for any reason other than as a hobby or
to do maintenance work, you've been lead down the wrong path.
Really? What makes you give this advice?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-08 20:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Ray,
P.S. If you're looking into this for any reason other than as a hobby or to
do maintenance work, you've been lead down the wrong path.
Interesting comment.... I have ( and have used ) just about all the linkers
available for Clipper and have used Blinker along with all the others At
some point in time ( for some applications, I found RTLink slightly better
than Blinker.... but for some other applications ( app sizes, link setups
etc ), Blinker was better.

I figure since Blinker was first introduced, I've produced a few million
dollars worth of software using it.... not sure if that qualifies as a
"hobby" or not. <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-09 05:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Ray,
Post by Ray Marron
P.S. If you're looking into this for any reason other than as a hobby or to
do maintenance work, you've been lead down the wrong path.
Curious, uninformed, and very sad comment.

I can assure you that the number of NEW projects utilizing the Clipper
language (i.e. C3, Clip, CULE, Flagship, Harbour, xBase++ and xHarbour) is
steadily GROWING, and I expect will continue to grow aggresivly the next few
years.

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-09 09:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Ron,

The way I read it..... he was talking about using Blinker as the "wrong
path".... now if the topic is should one use Clipper for a new Project....
that's a different debate entirely..... there's lots of factors that has to
go into that choice....

But one way or another....his blanket statement ( no matter what he was
talking about ).... was out of line for sure.

Al
Ray Marron
2003-12-09 14:45:33 UTC
Permalink
"Al Acker" <***@thexbasefiles.com> wrote in message news:KsgBb.477917$***@attbi_s03...
...
Post by Al Acker
But one way or another....his blanket statement ( no matter what
he was talking about ).... was out of line for sure.
How can an opinion be "out of line"? I could have been more clear that it
wasn't directed at the linker. However, it is my opinion that the DBF just
doesn't have the muscle for what today's (non-mom-and-pop) businesses need.
I've been doing a lot of development with PostgreSQL lately and I can't
believe I didn't jump on this bandwagon much, much earlier.

Instead of scolding me, feel free to explain why I'm wrong (for the O.P.'s
benefit, not mine). Again, I say to the O.P. - if you're just learning (and
want to make a living), look to the future and not the past.
--
Ray Marron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-09 15:44:43 UTC
Permalink
[SNIP] However, it is my opinion that the DBF just
doesn't have the muscle for what today's (non-mom-and-pop) businesses
need. I've been doing a lot of development with PostgreSQL lately and I
can't believe I didn't jump on this bandwagon much, much earlier.
The last time I used PostgreSQL (about an hour ago) it was a database
server, not a language. Come to think of it I don't think I saw the OP
mention database formats or engines at all. Why do you equate Clipper, the
language, with DBFs and only DBFs? Granted, mixing "Clipper" with "Blinker"
sets off the odd DOS oriented alarm bell but, in that case, wouldn't it make
more sense to seek more information about what the OP is doing before you
dismiss any involvement with Clipper as a "look to the...past"?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ray Marron
2003-12-09 20:01:03 UTC
Permalink
"Dave Pearson" <***@davep.org> wrote in message news:***@hagbard.davep.org...
...
Why do you equate Clipper, the language, with DBFs
and only DBFs?
Because other than the occasional one-off quickie program, that's all I've
ever used it for (and I've loved every minute of it). I think if you ask
most people to name the first thing that comes to their head when you
mention "Clipper" is "DBF". To me, they are inextricably linked.

Granted there are new implementations that use the Clipper or xBase dialect,
but (to me) these aren't "Clipper", they are only similar. I probably
shouldn't have lumped them into my statement, even though I think for the
most part they're just being used by long-time Clipper programmers to add
some 32-bit juice to their existing DBF programs.

I didn't mean to start a big hullabaloo, but I stand by what I said: I
don't think the OP should bother with Clipper (the DOS DBF programming
language). If he's interested in the dialect, I suppose he should jump
directly to one of the new implementations.
--
Ray Marron
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-09 16:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Hello Ray,
Post by Ray Marron
How can an opinion be "out of line"? I could have been more clear that it
wasn't directed at the linker. However, it is my opinion that the DBF just
doesn't have the muscle for what today's (non-mom-and-pop) businesses need.
I've been doing a lot of development with PostgreSQL lately and I can't
believe I didn't jump on this bandwagon much, much earlier.
Instead of scolding me, feel free to explain why I'm wrong (for the O.P.'s
benefit, not mine). Again, I say to the O.P. - if you're just learning (and
want to make a living), look to the future and not the past.
I didn't scold you, I stated that your opinion was curius, uninformed, and
sad - your above clarification just proves my point.

Your response was clearly uninformed, because you *assume* that the Clipper
language is unable to manage database formats different than DBF. That
assumption clearly distorted your point of view.

FYI, xHarbour, supports, ADS, ODBC, ADO (same syntax as used with VB, VC,
etc), and practically any SQL Server, including, MySQL, DB2, MSSQL, Oracle,
and more. SQL is support *both* using the same SQL language, or using the
xBase language.

I assume, the other products listed in my original reply, all have
capabilites well beyond traditional DBF.

What made Clipper the suuccesful product it was, was not it's DBF engine, it
was it's amazingly rich and powerful language, with it's unique
PreProcessing capabilities, CodeBlocks, Macros, Flexible Arrays, etc. etc..

Modern implementations of Clipper like xHarbour, adds additional layers of
functionality, by means of ActiveX support, ODBC, SQL, modern language
constructs like, FOR EACH, WITH OBJECT, TRY/CTACH, RegEx, MT, GUI, and so
many more features that it's better you simply review for your self.

Ron
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-09 19:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Ron,

Ray was clearly responding to Al about scolding.

Lee Clinkscales
Post by Ron Pinkas
Hello Ray,
Post by Ray Marron
Instead of scolding me, feel free to explain why I'm wrong (for the O.P.'s
benefit, not mine). Again, I say to the O.P. - if you're just learning
(and
Post by Ray Marron
want to make a living), look to the future and not the past.
I didn't scold you, I stated that your opinion was curius, uninformed, and
sad - your above clarification just proves my point.
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-09 19:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Lee,
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Ray was clearly responding to Al about scolding.
I didn't suggest that directed his comment, *only* at me, and I can't be
sure if he even directed it *also* at me - I clarified my response to be on
the safe side.

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-10 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Lee,

I don't feel like I was "scolding" anyone..... If it came off that way, I
didn't mean it too. ( also remember I thought he was talking about
Blinker.... so I misread his intent ).

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-10 01:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Al,

I never said you were. :-)

Lee Clinkscales
Post by Al Acker
Lee,
I don't feel like I was "scolding" anyone..... If it came off that way, I
didn't mean it too. ( also remember I thought he was talking about
Blinker.... so I misread his intent ).
Al
Ben Prescott
2003-12-10 20:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
FYI, xHarbour, supports, ADS, ODBC, ADO (same syntax as used with VB, VC,
etc), and practically any SQL Server, including, MySQL, DB2, MSSQL, Oracle,
and more. SQL is support *both* using the same SQL language, or using the
xBase language.
Hello Ron,

When using xHarbour with a SQL backend - and the xBase language - does the above
mean that I can compile my application with a different RDD and interact with
a SQL server without any further change to vocabulary or syntax?

Thanks,

Ben Prescott

www.smallops.com
GPL small business software
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-10 22:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Ben,
Post by Ben Prescott
When using xHarbour with a SQL backend - and the xBase language - does the above
mean that I can compile my application with a different RDD and interact with
a SQL server without any further change to vocabulary or syntax?
There are at least 2 propriatary RDD's offering transparent SQL support
using the xBase syntax. Your code might require some minor modifications,
but gerenrally speaking YES, your current xbase code with work with the SQL
backend.

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-10 01:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Ray,

First of all, Clipper is a language.... it's also a compiler... but it's not
a Database.... Second, have you ever used a back end server with .dbf
files? Believe me, try an Advantage Server back end with .dbf files....
there's lots of power there and I know there are quite a few fortune 100
companies using it. ( I know since I wrote the software ).

Also, you can use something like Advantage, .dbf tables and C++ or Delphi to
get even more power.... I know that also since I use it and a lot of 100's
have gone that way also. We first upgraded their Clipper front end to C++
and kept the backend database the way it was. Their plan was to at some
point move the backend to MSSql or DB2, but they found better performance
and "bang for their buck" using Advantage and .dbf tables. ( If you don't
believe me, you can check the performance figures and cost figures at the
Advantage web site. )

So, besides not being clear about what you were referring to as "the wrong
path"..... you may have also been unclear about what __really__ is the right
and wrong path.... People sometimes base their opinions on ONLY personal
experience and personal knowledge.... can't blame them for that.... but also
most of the time people define their opinions as "IMO" etc etc to define
where they are coming from and try to avoid blanket statements..

Now if the subject of the conversation is "What __language__ should I learn
if I want to make a living writing software?" ( and I have no prior
knowledge and no pending contracts etc etc etc ).... then I'll be more than
happy to agree with you.... If I had to pick a top 3 list.... IMO, Clipper
( or any other Xbase product for that matter ) would not be on the map. My
list would most likely look something like this....

C++
Java
VB ( I personally hate VB but you can make a living with it <g> )

Also tack on some misc. knowledge of ASP / SOAP / SQL and general Database
design and you've got a great start at making a living writing software.
( Agreed, it takes a lot more than just the "mechanics" to become a
programmer.... past projects and general business knowledge is worth it's
wait in gold....)

IE IMO, If I were a business person, I'd much rather have software written
by a top of the line Clipper programmer than some VB hack who just knows how
to create pretty screens and has no clue of back end business logic. <g>.

Bottom line.... it's hard to make blanket statements without knowing all the
factors.

Hope this helps define my opinion.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Joe Grant
2003-12-10 10:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Ray,
. , , ,
Post by Al Acker
Now if the subject of the conversation is "What __language__ should I learn
. . . .
Post by Al Acker
C++
Java
VB ( I personally hate VB but you can make a living with it <g> )
. . . .
Al,

At the risk of drifting O.T,
I'd be interested to know why you hate VB.

I hate it too: I have a stalled VB project, and
every time I think about re-starting it I get depressed.

But why ?
I can't help feeling that there is soemthing wrong with ME, not VB.

Does it have something to do with the need to wander around from
here to there and tinkering with things, like a plumber in a brewery ?

Joe
gabor salai
2003-12-10 11:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Grant
Post by Al Acker
Ray,
. , , ,
Post by Al Acker
Now if the subject of the conversation is "What __language__ should I learn
. . . .
Post by Al Acker
C++
Java
VB ( I personally hate VB but you can make a living with it <g> )
. . . .
Al,
At the risk of drifting O.T,
I'd be interested to know why you hate VB.
I hate it too: I have a stalled VB project, and
every time I think about re-starting it I get depressed.
But why ?
I can't help feeling that there is soemthing wrong with ME, not VB.
Does it have something to do with the need to wander around from
here to there and tinkering with things, like a plumber in a brewery ?
o.t.
you may implement business or whatever logic in any programming
language or whatever, but if you plan to integrate it *seamlesly* into
windows environment, the first choice is vb.
i have seen few tools (xbase++ for example) declared to be
win gui, but forms and dialog boxes they generate simply dont
behave so smoothly like vb genarated. maybe microsoft keeps some
tricks hidden?
Dave Pearson
2003-12-10 13:22:37 UTC
Permalink
i have seen few tools (xbase++ for example) declared to be win gui, but
forms and dialog boxes they generate simply dont behave so smoothly like
vb genarated. maybe microsoft keeps some tricks hidden?
Perhaps that's Xbase++'s OS/2 heritage showing? Leaving aside the likes of
Xbase++ for a moment, what makes you suggest that VB would be the first
choice to "seamlessly integrate" with the Windows environment? What does
"seamlessly integrate" mean and what are you comparing VB against such that
it is a first choice?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
gabor salai
2003-12-10 15:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
i have seen few tools (xbase++ for example) declared to be win gui, but
forms and dialog boxes they generate simply dont behave so smoothly like
vb genarated. maybe microsoft keeps some tricks hidden?
Perhaps that's Xbase++'s OS/2 heritage showing? Leaving aside the likes of
Xbase++ for a moment, what makes you suggest that VB would be the first
choice to "seamlessly integrate" with the Windows environment? What does
"seamlessly integrate" mean and what are you comparing VB against such that
it is a first choice?
maybe i've used to hard words, or buzzwords? (not specialy mentioned xbase++
for any reason, just noticed, while reviewing their demo from gui samples,
that box with few controls on it is not resizing smoothly, while dragging
one of corners with mouse)
"seamless" means only visualy (it is all user/customer may observe, he is
rare interested in program logic and details, he just wants his app "be
trendy")
there is no doubt that you may "under the surface" use any compiler and link
any lib or dll and call any win api but i think "out of the box" vb gives
the best starting position.
again, i don't say anything about vb quality of any kind, just think, if you
are chosing to program for win gui, first try vb. it is simple "matter of
monopol" and it is our reality ...
Dave Pearson
2003-12-10 15:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabor salai
"seamless" means only visualy (it is all user/customer may observe, he is
rare interested in program logic and details, he just wants his app "be
trendy")
Thankfully, for the most part, "does the job and does it well" seems more
important than "trendy" in the work I do. I'm not actually that sure how
"trendy" would translate into real development issues. Care to elaborate?
Post by gabor salai
there is no doubt that you may "under the surface" use any compiler and
link any lib or dll and call any win api but i think "out of the box" vb
gives the best starting position.
I think this sort of repeats your earlier point but I don't think it really
addresses the question "why?". What "starting position" is this that you
speak of?
Post by gabor salai
again, i don't say anything about vb quality of any kind, just think, if
you are chosing to program for win gui, first try vb. it is simple "matter
of monopol" and it is our reality ...
I'm not sure I really understand what you're trying to say here. I guess,
when you say "matter of monopol", you're suggesting that Microsoft have a
monopoly on development tools and that people should go with the monopolist?
Is that what you're saying? If so, why?

I'm not at all sure what this "reality" is that you speak of. Could you tell
us what it is?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
gabor salai
2003-12-11 13:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by gabor salai
"seamless" means only visualy (it is all user/customer may observe, he is
rare interested in program logic and details, he just wants his app "be
trendy")
Thankfully, for the most part, "does the job and does it well" seems more
important than "trendy" in the work I do. I'm not actually that sure how
"trendy" would translate into real development issues. Care to elaborate?
just to be clear. i am not "trendy" man, i am dos man. i like text based
apps that, clearly, under the surface, perform their job. i am heavily
missing csh and sh from unix systems i was working with before.
"trendy" is just an expression taken from fashion magazine of my wife, where
columnist was selecting persons from showbiz, some of them to be "trendy" or
"not-trendy". is it enough as "elaboration"?
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by gabor salai
there is no doubt that you may "under the surface" use any compiler and
link any lib or dll and call any win api but i think "out of the box" vb
gives the best starting position.
I think this sort of repeats your earlier point but I don't think it really
addresses the question "why?". What "starting position" is this that you
speak of?
Post by gabor salai
again, i don't say anything about vb quality of any kind, just think, if
you are chosing to program for win gui, first try vb. it is simple "matter
of monopol" and it is our reality ...
I'm not sure I really understand what you're trying to say here. I guess,
when you say "matter of monopol", you're suggesting that Microsoft have a
monopoly on development tools and that people should go with the monopolist?
Is that what you're saying? If so, why?
I'm not at all sure what this "reality" is that you speak of. Could you tell
us what it is?
don't know situation in your (geographic) area, but here is 99% of windows.
you are not obliged on any way to write app for wn os, but if do so,
***personaly i think*** ms tools has priority. that is the monopol and
reality and best starting position i was writting about. otherwise, i have
no time resources to develop app in few different tools and then to compare
them.
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 15:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabor salai
Post by Dave Pearson
Thankfully, for the most part, "does the job and does it well" seems
more important than "trendy" in the work I do. I'm not actually that
sure how "trendy" would translate into real development issues. Care to
elaborate?
just to be clear. i am not "trendy" man, i am dos man. i like text based
apps that, clearly, under the surface, perform their job. i am heavily
missing csh and sh from unix systems i was working with before.
[Noting your aside...] Both csh and variations on sh are available for DOS
and Windows and have been for a long time now. Why miss them? Why not make
use of them?
Post by gabor salai
"trendy" is just an expression taken from fashion magazine of my wife,
where columnist was selecting persons from showbiz, some of them to be
"trendy" or "not-trendy". is it enough as "elaboration"?
Not really. I'm aware of what "trendy" means, I'm wondering more about how
that translates into real development issues. What do you mean when you say
it in this context?
Post by gabor salai
Post by Dave Pearson
I'm not at all sure what this "reality" is that you speak of. Could you
tell us what it is?
don't know situation in your (geographic) area, but here is 99% of windows.
I don't know what the actual values are or how you'd work them out but I
guess that 99% would be a useful figure to work with. Yes, Microsoft Windows
is prevalent in many parts of the IT industry here in the UK.
Post by gabor salai
you are not obliged on any way to write app for wn os, but if do
so, ***personaly i think*** ms tools has priority. that is the monopol and
reality and best starting position i was writting about.
Note, however, that this "monopoly" that you speak of seems to be one of
your own design. I've been writing software for Microsoft Windows, on and
off, since the days of Windows 3.0. I think the last time I used a Microsoft
product to deploy a Windows application it was Visual Basic 1.0, or it might
have been 2.0, I forget now. Either way it was a long time ago.
Post by gabor salai
otherwise, i have
no time resources to develop app in few different tools and then to
compare them.
Which might well be one reason why someone might go for the Microsoft-only
route (the "flocking" approach to tool choice). But I don't think it's
possible to blame that on a "monopoly".
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-10 23:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Gabor,
but if you plan to integrate it *seamlesly* into
windows environment, the first choice is vb.
i have seen few tools (xbase++ for example) declared to be
win gui, but forms and dialog boxes they generate simply dont
behave so smoothly like vb genarated. maybe microsoft keeps some
tricks hidden?
You're not even close to being right on the above statement. Have you ever
played with a Borland C++ or MS VC++ created app..... or a Delphi app ???

Do you really think that all MS tools are written in VB ??? You sound like
you think the only choices out there is either an xbase language or VB.
Luckily, that's not the case.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
gabor salai
2003-12-11 13:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Gabor,
but if you plan to integrate it *seamlesly* into
windows environment, the first choice is vb.
i have seen few tools (xbase++ for example) declared to be
win gui, but forms and dialog boxes they generate simply dont
behave so smoothly like vb genarated. maybe microsoft keeps some
tricks hidden?
You're not even close to being right on the above statement. Have you ever
played with a Borland C++ or MS VC++ created app..... or a Delphi app ???
Do you really think that all MS tools are written in VB ??? You sound like
you think the only choices out there is either an xbase language or VB.
Luckily, that's not the case.
about vb and all other win stuff i have only my *opinions*, as you said, i
have only played a little with them (while with clipper i may have
*statements*).
bc++, (friend of mine borrowed me his bc++ v5.5), and:
1) in bc++ ide control's property window has uggly behaviour, something i
explained for xbase++
2) while in bc++ ide, when trying to select some property dropdown list (not
all, but on one particular, and allways on the same) my w98 simply freezes!
maybe i was doing completely wrong, but on first overview, i was stopped.
3) on bc++ distribution on introductory text about bc++ and ms compatibility
is clearly written that bc++ pascal system is written like wrapper about win
api, while vc++ (or msf) is using native api call.
from my point of view "visual integration" both, vb, vc++ are the same.
and regarding "choices out there" i was not mentioning anything, but the
fact that in my example vb generated app visualy was the closest to win apps
i used to use.
Al Acker
2003-12-11 18:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Gabor,
Post by gabor salai
bc++, (friend of mine borrowed me his bc++ v5.5),
I think you may have your products confused.... to my knowledge, BC++
never had a version 5.5 I think they went from 5.0 to 6.0 ( but that's
besides the point ) We understand what you were trying to say <g>.

Al
gabor salai
2003-12-11 21:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Gabor,
Post by gabor salai
bc++, (friend of mine borrowed me his bc++ v5.5),
I think you may have your products confused.... to my knowledge, BC++
never had a version 5.5 I think they went from 5.0 to 6.0 ( but that's
besides the point ) We understand what you were trying to say <g>.
you are right, the whole package is called "borland c++ builder 5", but
command line compiler from it, bcc32.exe, says "borland c++ 5.5", and
i am using that bcc32 for playing with harbour.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 00:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Gabor,

Yep, that makes more sense.... the 5.5 compiler is the one that's dated 2000
I think.

Good if I ever need instructions on how to use Harbour with my C compiler, I
now know who to ask! <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
gabor salai
2003-12-12 07:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Gabor,
Yep, that makes more sense.... the 5.5 compiler is the one that's dated 2000
I think.
Good if I ever need instructions on how to use Harbour with my C compiler, I
now know who to ask! <g>.
you are going to ask on wrong place, my c compiler(s) of choice,
since 1992, are:
msc5.1 since it is good for c87's c-api, c53b is also satisfied with it,
tc1.0 for standalone utilities
Alex Strickland
2003-12-10 13:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Grant
At the risk of drifting O.T,
I'd be interested to know why you hate VB.
I hate it too: I have a stalled VB project, and
every time I think about re-starting it I get depressed.
Me too. I think we grew up in a text era, what you see (textually) is
what you get in a Clipper app. In VB so much of your code is "hidden"
in the visual elements, you can't see what defaults have been set up
in the controls. As a matter of habit in VB I normally try and
initialise all the elements in code and yet that seems to defeat the
object of using the language.

I do all my programming in Windows using Clipper and the vast majority
of my dialogs are created by feeding an array of parameters to a class
which then does all of the windows dialog management. Everything is in
the array - visually (if you are happy to "visualise" text).

I hate the way that it seem impossible to organise your code in a
logical manner when writing VB to control forms. Alphabetic order
seems pretty piss poor to me. Granted when writing classes in VB you
are left to your own devices about organising your code, but even the
class syntax seems to try and pretend that you aren't really writing a
class.

I also hate the total lack of orthoganality in VB (I think that is the
correct term) so that you feel like you are writing COBOL, all those
intermediate assignments to variables. I hate the lack of unary
operators and the lack of the ternary operator. I hate the way it
insists on using its own style for formatting, the brain dead editor,
the stupid syntax checker which defaults to bringing up a modal dialog
if you haven't finished a line and move away, the way it changes your
variables case if you make a mistake when writing the variable out
again, it's strong(ish) typing and strange typing rules, the dumb
default for value and reference parameters, the cloddish array
management etc etc.

Wow, that felt good. Let the religious wars begin!

I am impressed with the way they brought OLE to the masses - hardly a
language feature though.


Alex Strickland
***@mweb.co.za
Al Acker
2003-12-10 23:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Alex,
I also hate the total lack of orthoganality in VB (I think that is the
correct term) so that you feel like you are writing COBOL, all those
intermediate assignments to variables. I hate the lack of unary
operators and the lack of the ternary operator. I hate the way it
insists on using its own style for formatting, the brain dead editor,
the stupid syntax checker which defaults to bringing up a modal dialog
if you haven't finished a line and move away, the way it changes your
variables case if you make a mistake when writing the variable out
again, it's strong(ish) typing and strange typing rules, the dumb
default for value and reference parameters, the cloddish array
management etc etc.
Bingo! You took the long rounte.... I just stated the "look and feel" of
the source <GGG>.

I do disagree with the wanting to "see everything in the source"
statement.... In C++ for example, you never have to "see" the position code
of the controls.... all that goes into the resource file.... ( it's a text
file and you can look at it....but you never need to ).... But you do see
all the control code... and ie business logic. For me that's the best of
both worlds..... I drag a control to where I need it and do all the
alignments using the IDE.... I don't need or want to see that this object is
sitting at xxx,xxx pixels <G>. But I do see all pretty loop / if
statements, assignment code etc and it all looks good since it flows exactly
like Clipper oop code.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Al Acker
2003-12-10 23:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi Joe,

No there's nothing wrong with you <GGG>.... it's your background. Most
Clipper programmers love the language.... as opposed to let's say the "dBASE
flavor of Xbase", Clipper esp OOP Clipper... "flows". ( not sure how to
explain it but you'll most likely understand ).

Also Clipper was written by a bunch of C programmers..... so it has parts
that are extremely C and C++ like.

Therefore, most Clipper programmers will end up liking C++ and closely
related languages much more than let's say VB.... just because of the
similarities with Clipper.

I bet you if you moved your VB app to C++, you'd be much happier with it.

Laying down code is very much an "art form", if the programmer isn't happy
with the way it looks, the programmer will end up not being productive
because he/she isn't happy with the "look and feel" of the language source.
This has nothing to do with how the app runs or looks.... it's the "look and
feel" of the source code.

Al

--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Post by Joe Grant
Post by Al Acker
Ray,
. , , ,
Post by Al Acker
Now if the subject of the conversation is "What __language__ should I learn
. . . .
Post by Al Acker
C++
Java
VB ( I personally hate VB but you can make a living with it <g> )
. . . .
Al,
At the risk of drifting O.T,
I'd be interested to know why you hate VB.
I hate it too: I have a stalled VB project, and
every time I think about re-starting it I get depressed.
But why ?
I can't help feeling that there is soemthing wrong with ME, not VB.
Does it have something to do with the need to wander around from
here to there and tinkering with things, like a plumber in a brewery ?
Joe
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 09:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Also Clipper was written by a bunch of C programmers..... so it has parts
that are extremely C and C++ like.
Therefore, most Clipper programmers will end up liking C++ and closely
related languages much more than let's say VB.... just because of the
similarities with Clipper.
Parts of Clipper 5.0 also seemed to be very influenced by SmallTalk. Do you
think that most Clipper programmers will end up liking SmallTalk too?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-11 18:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Parts of Clipper 5.0 also seemed to be very influenced by SmallTalk. Do you
think that most Clipper programmers will end up liking SmallTalk too?
Your right.... the design team was very heavy into the oop advantages of
SmallTalk. And I think most Clipper (OOP) programmers would be quite happy
with SmallTalk.... vs for example, Basic... but as you know, SmallTalk isn't
really a player right now <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Parts of Clipper 5.0 also seemed to be very influenced by SmallTalk. Do you
think that most Clipper programmers will end up liking SmallTalk too?
Your right.... the design team was very heavy into the oop advantages of
SmallTalk. And I think most Clipper (OOP) programmers would be quite happy
with SmallTalk.... vs for example, Basic... but as you know, SmallTalk
isn't really a player right now <g>.
Player? Do you mean it isn't popular by this job availability measure? Sure,
it probably isn't as popular by that measure. However, it's my understanding
that SmallTalk, like a lot of other "non player" languages, still has
commercially supported implementations, not to mention a couple of free
software implementations.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 14:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Player? Do you mean it isn't popular by this job availability measure? Sure,
it probably isn't as popular by that measure. However, it's my understanding
that SmallTalk, like a lot of other "non player" languages, still has
commercially supported implementations, not to mention a couple of free
software implementations.
To be honest, I'm not sure.... I haven't been involved in any SmallTalk
projects in so long that I've lost track of that community. ( I'm sure a
lot of old Clipper programmers could say the same thing about Clipper....
i.e. when was the last time you heard the names Lief, Spence, Straley etc
etc mentioned within the Clipper community? ).

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 15:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
To be honest, I'm not sure.... I haven't been involved in any SmallTalk
projects in so long that I've lost track of that community. ( I'm sure a
lot of old Clipper programmers could say the same thing about Clipper....
i.e. when was the last time you heard the names Lief, Spence, Straley etc
etc mentioned within the Clipper community? ).
Hadn't realised that you'd been so involved with SmallTalk. What sorts of
things did you do for SmallTalk that are akin to what Lief, Spence and
Straley did for Clipper? What should I Google on?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 16:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Hadn't realised that you'd been so involved with SmallTalk. What sorts of
things did you do for SmallTalk that are akin to what Lief, Spence and
Straley did for Clipper? What should I Google on?
Nothing that I would "google on" <g>. I helped work on some projects that
Tom Rettig had ( that's a LONG time ago <g> )... enough to get used to the
product and "awe" at the power.... but I never did anything on my own that I
sold. Mostly it was something to play with.... it was very cool what you
could do with it since it was based on itself <g>.... but I sure wouldn't be
comfortable doing anything with it now.

Al
Joe Grant
2003-12-11 19:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Gabor, Dave, Al and Alex.

Gabor's point refelcts my original reason for trying VB;
I had a client who wanted to stay mainstream,
so that someone else could pick up where I left off
if I fell under a bus or got terminally bored.
Microsft does have a pseudo-monolpoly,
and is the best option for those who seek security
( flocking is the right strategy in some circumstances ).

Alex knows exactly how I feel about VB
and explains why
which reassures me
because he sounds quite sane.

Al helps me see that comfort is important;
The need to switch between VB and Clipper
sometimes several time a day
was part of what distrurbed me
I was trying to keep two conflicting sets of reflexes
up and running at the same time.
And how things are laid out and stored away
is part of the complex machinery one uses
to keep track of what one is doing
an of where one has got to in the task
and covinces me that C++ might be worth a try;
I have Visual Studio on my machine,
but have not even looked at C++
because I have the idea that it, like C,
is meant for writing system software
( compliers, OSs and the like )
rather than end-user applications.

Dave stirs things up as usual
and keeps everyone honest,
but quite franlky
I have never been good a small talk.

Joe




and for
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-09 19:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Ray,

I could assume that since you have been in c.l.c. for some time now that you
have a fairly thick skin. However, Let me just say that I appreciate your
comments here and I agree with what I think you meant -- that there is
little reason for someone to _learn_ Clipper at this point. This does not
mean that someone should not learn an xbase language. There are many fine
developers available today with a more thorough knowledge of Clipper than
any newbie is likely to achieve. As I see it, there is an over-supply of
good Clipper developers.

Before I get flamed, just let me say that I love Clipper. I have never used
anything but the xbase language and may some day find out what (x)Harbour is
all about. I do not make my living writing code.

I believe that you, Ray, did the OP a service for pointing out that Clipper
is not where you would recommend he start if he intends to do serious
programming.

Lee Clinkscales
Post by Ray Marron
...
Post by Ben Rankin
What is Blinker?
Blinker is a commercial linker for Clipper (among other languages). It is
generally considered _the_ Clipper linker.
http://www.blinkinc.com
Post by Ben Rankin
Is there an online source for a beginning Clipper programmer?
Not really, but there are lots of code examples available. Start at the
http://www.the-oasis.net
Other than that, just ask here.
P.S. If you're looking into this for any reason other than as a hobby or to
do maintenance work, you've been lead down the wrong path.
--
Ray Marron
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-09 19:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I could assume that since you have been in c.l.c. for some time now that you
have a fairly thick skin. However, Let me just say that I appreciate your
comments here and I agree with what I think you meant -- that there is
little reason for someone to _learn_ Clipper at this point. This does not
mean that someone should not learn an xbase language. There are many fine
developers available today with a more thorough knowledge of Clipper than
any newbie is likely to achieve. As I see it, there is an over-supply of
good Clipper developers.
Lee, now I must direct my same comment at you, because you seem to
completely discount the *fact* that Clipper is an established LANGUAGE, and
not just a product! The facts supporting my statement, are the existence of
at least 7 products/platforms aiming to be modern implementation of the
Clipper language. Just look at:

- C3
- Clip
- CULE
- FlagShip
- Harbour
- xBase++
- xHarbour

Therefore I'm more then puzzled by your "there is little reason for someone
to _learn_ Clipper at this point." statement.

As you can see there are many good reasons for anyone to learn the Clipper
language.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I love Clipper. I have never used
anything but the xbase language and may some day find out what (x)Harbour is
all about. I do not make my living writing code.
Well, this may explain your problem - it's sad that you took the liberty of
giving such advice, *knowing* that your information regarding the subject is
obviously lacking.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I believe that you, Ray, did the OP a service for pointing out that Clipper
is not where you would recommend he start if he intends to do serious
programming.
Both Ray, and yourself, did the OP, [and the entire Clipper Developers
community] a serious disservice, with such uninformed statements.

Ron
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-09 21:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Ron,
Post by Ron Pinkas
Lee, now I must direct my same comment at you, because you seem to
completely discount the *fact* that Clipper is an established LANGUAGE, and
not just a product!
Perhaps I should have said CA-Clipper since Computer Associates owns the
name Clipper. I do not accept that Clipper is a language. I think Clipper is
a product. I think the language it uses is generically known as xbase.
Clipper was not the first product to use xbase, that was (AFAIK) dBASE --
which I still use daily.
I'll admit that the Clipper flavor of xbase may be used by other compilers,
but even with my limited experience, I have heard of differences between,
say, Clipper and Flagship. If they are different, they cannot be the same.

The OP clearly knew about several implementations of xbase, so can hardly
say I was misleading him -- certainly not after this thread had gone as far
as it had by the time I stepped in.
Post by Ron Pinkas
Therefore I'm more then puzzled by your "there is little reason for someone
to _learn_ Clipper at this point." statement.
I submit that I clarified the difference between Clipper and xbase in my
previous message and have done so in more depth here.
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I love Clipper. I have never
used
Post by Lee Clinkscales
anything but the xbase language and may some day find out what
(x)Harbour
Post by Ron Pinkas
is
Post by Lee Clinkscales
all about. I do not make my living writing code.
Well, this may explain your problem - it's sad that you took the liberty of
giving such advice, *knowing* that your information regarding the subject is
obviously lacking.
I feel that I should be credited for qualifying my advice. Apparently you
will not be happy until I endorse xHarbour. I can't do that as I haven't
used it. However, I'm certainly not going to call it Clipper. If xHarbour is
100% Clipper ~compatible~, great. That doesn't make it Clipper.

If I were to advise anyone about what to learn, I would not eschew an xbase
("Clipper compatible" if you wish) language, but I would seriously recommend
that unless he were only targeting DOS with CA-Clipper, he should look
elsewhere. As the OP appears to be based in the U.S.A., I'll bet he isn't
targeting strictly DOS machines.

Lee Clinkscales
Ray Marron
2003-12-09 21:43:11 UTC
Permalink
"Lee Clinkscales" <***@spamwheelin.com> wrote in message news:UJqBb.3895$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
[SNIP everything]

Lee, you're so much better than I am at expressing/distilling what you're
thinking into words that get it across. I envy you.
--
Ray Marron
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-10 03:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Hello Lee,
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Perhaps I should have said CA-Clipper since Computer Associates owns the
name Clipper. I do not accept that Clipper is a language. I think Clipper is
a product. I think the language it uses is generically known as xbase.
I believe the facts involved are clear, there are a handful of products
implementing the Clipper *language*. Clipper is no longer a product, it's a
well defined language implemented by number of products.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Clipper was not the first product to use xbase, that was (AFAIK) dBASE --
which I still use daily.
Which is why I think it's so wrong to equate Clipper with DBF - it wasn't me
that made that statement!
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I'll admit that the Clipper flavor of xbase may be used by other compilers,
but even with my limited experience, I have heard of differences between,
say, Clipper and Flagship. If they are different, they cannot be the same.
Until you are ready to discuss specific details, I suppose this discussion
can't get much further.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
The OP clearly knew about several implementations of xbase, so can hardly
say I was misleading him -- certainly not after this thread had gone as far
as it had by the time I stepped in.
I never suggested any bad intent. I accepted lack of information as the
explanation.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Post by Ron Pinkas
Therefore I'm more then puzzled by your "there is little reason for
someone
Post by Ron Pinkas
to _learn_ Clipper at this point." statement.
I submit that I clarified the difference between Clipper and xbase in my
previous message and have done so in more depth here.
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I love Clipper. I have never
used
Post by Lee Clinkscales
anything but the xbase language and may some day find out what
(x)Harbour
Post by Ron Pinkas
is
Post by Lee Clinkscales
all about. I do not make my living writing code.
Well, this may explain your problem - it's sad that you took the liberty
of
Post by Ron Pinkas
giving such advice, *knowing* that your information regarding the
subject
Post by Lee Clinkscales
is
Post by Ron Pinkas
obviously lacking.
I feel that I should be credited for qualifying my advice. Apparently you
will not be happy until I endorse xHarbour. I can't do that as I haven't
used it. However, I'm certainly not going to call it Clipper. If xHarbour is
100% Clipper ~compatible~, great. That doesn't make it Clipper.
Lee, this discussion doesn't have any direct relation to xHarbour - I
specifically listed 6 other products implementing the Clipper language.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
If I were to advise anyone about what to learn, I would not eschew an xbase
("Clipper compatible" if you wish) language, but I would seriously recommend
that unless he were only targeting DOS with CA-Clipper, he should look
elsewhere. As the OP appears to be based in the U.S.A., I'll bet he isn't
targeting strictly DOS machines.
Here you make another grossly un-informed statement - what makes you think
that the Clipper language is targeting DOS machines exclusively?

Even in the good all original Clipper days, they were at least 2 fairly
successful GUI implementations. Now days, the number of GUI alternatives
available to a Clipper programmers is many times more. You owe yourself at
least a quick review of what is avilable before making such false claims.

Lee, I ask that you consider the fact that many individuals did consider
Clipper a language, and have invested hugh amounts of time to implement that
language on different platforms, OSs, etc.. Once such efforts produced
actual products which DO implement Clipper the language, one can NO LONGER
claim that Clipper is not a language, because it's undisputed that the
*language* is implemented by multiple such products.

The Clipper language specifications are FAR MORE than xBase related dialect,
it includes very powerful Pre-Processor, specific features like Codblocks
(with support for Detached Variables), specific implementation of Arrays,
Macros with Early/Late binding, RDDs, Extend API, Exception handling, and so
much more. Most importantly all such specifications are exhaustively
documented, allowing for precise specifications of the language referred to
as the Clipper langue.

Respectfully,

Ron
M Murch
2003-12-10 18:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Ron,

I would have to say that I think of Clipper as a product and xbase as
a language. That is the common definition around here, isn't it?

This is an international newsgroup and I would not be surprised to
find the word Clipper translated as xbase by one of our overseas
friends!

Mike
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-10 19:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Mike,
Post by M Murch
I would have to say that I think of Clipper as a product and xbase as
a language. That is the common definition around here, isn't it?
If this is the case, then it's time to revise this wrong definition, the
facts are clear and speak for themselves.

There are at least half a dozen products out there, implementing the Clipper
language. As I explained earlier, the Clipper language is a very well
established set of specifications, which include numerous aspects that have
*nothing* at all to do with xBase in general. One may say that the Clipper
language is a *superset* of the xBase language/feature set, and so every
product implementing the Clipper language is by default *also* an xBase
implementation. But not the reverse.
Post by M Murch
This is an international newsgroup and I would not be surprised to
find the word Clipper translated as xbase by one of our overseas
friends!
Again this would be a shame, because the Clipper language is far *more* than
an xBase language. Those Clipper developers that have not learned about the
many features that separate Clipper from the general xBase feature set, are
missing on whole lot of functionality!

Unlike any prior xBase implementation Clipper implemented [so many] language
extensions, that made it a suitable language for *general* development. This
is the very reason that so may individuals all over the globe were motivated
enough to contribute significant efforts to implement that Language on
practically every modern platform in existence.

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 09:10:48 UTC
Permalink
I would have to say that I think of Clipper as a product and xbase as a
language. That is the common definition around here, isn't it?
For quite a long time now plenty of regulars here seem to have been happy
with the idea that there's "Clipper the language" and that there's
"CA-Clipper the Clipper compiler". In part this is taken from the name of
the newsgroup itself. It's about the language Clipper and the likes of
CA-Clipper, FlagShip, Harbour, xHarbour and C3 (to name a handful of
implementations) seem to be accepted as on-topic. On the other hand I doubt
that all languages in the class of language often called xBase would be seen
as being on topic here. Few would probably find dBase's language, Fox's
language or VO's language to be an on-topic discussion here. True, it's not
terribly scientific but I think that alone suggests that there's a "sub-set"
of the languages known as "xBase" where they're all similar but they're
different from some others. They seem to need a name and many people seem to
have been happy enough to call them "Clipper implementations" for quite some
time now.
This is an international newsgroup and I would not be surprised to find
the word Clipper translated as xbase by one of our overseas friends!
What makes you think it's about translation?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-11 14:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Post by Dave Pearson
I would have to say that I think of Clipper as a product and xbase as a
language. That is the common definition around here, isn't it?
For quite a long time now plenty of regulars here seem to have been happy
with the idea that there's "Clipper the language" and that there's
"CA-Clipper the Clipper compiler". [ . . . ]
Thanks for a reasonable explanation -- as opposed to Ron's stating his
position as "*fact*."

I love the quote from Erik Naggum from another part of this thread. It
doesn't apply to me, but I had never thought of it that way. I makes it
easier for me to ignore VB (which became shelfware in a day for me).

Since I'm more of a hobbyist than a professional, I'm a one-tool guy. I love
Clipper. Some day I may love (x)Harbour. My primary reason for considering
it now is that I really don't want to learn a new language, but I will need
to target SQL databases. It now appears that xHarbour will let me use my
Clipper knowledge for this.

Given my situation, I'd like everyone's input on the best way for me to
target MS-SQL databases with Clipper-like syntax.

Thanks again.

Lee Clinkscales
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 16:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Dave,
Post by Dave Pearson
For quite a long time now plenty of regulars here seem to have been
happy with the idea that there's "Clipper the language" and that there's
"CA-Clipper the Clipper compiler". [ . . . ]
Thanks for a reasonable explanation
My pleasure, glad it was useful.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
-- as opposed to Ron's stating his
position as "*fact*."
Weeeellll, it sort of is and it isn't. I do think that Ron is wrong in
stating that it's a "fact" (especially with asterisks) but, at the same
time, I wouldn't be able to construct a cogent argument as to why he's wrong
because, in spirit, I'd agree with him. If you're part of the community that
I had in mind in my "reasonable explanation" then what Ron was saying is a
"fact". I wrote about this in the article I used to have on my web site that
I posted to c.l.c about the naming of harbour before harbour had a name,
it's about the difference between trademarks/product naming and the common
(human) language of a community. The "facts" are arguably on the side of
product naming and trademarks, but the facts of the community, the common
method of communication of the community would think more like Ron.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I love the quote from Erik Naggum from another part of this thread. It
doesn't apply to me, but I had never thought of it that way. I makes it
easier for me to ignore VB (which became shelfware in a day for me).
I suppose that's one use for the quote <g>. I think the lesson to take from
that quote is that number games as a way of saying something positive or
negative about a language are just a pointless pissing contests. People will
try and sell or dismiss a language based on job adverts, numbers of news
groups, Google hits, total posts to news groups, count of support web sites,
etc... And, more to the point, you'll see different people use any one of
the above in either way to make either point. Lots of job adverts shows that
something is crap 'cos nobody can find programmers and so they're
advertising. Or, lots of job adverts shows that something is crap 'cos
everybody wants to use the tool. Or...

IOW, anyone can cook the numbers any way they want but there's no getting
away from the fact that different people find different tools useful. In
that regard a Clipper implementation is just as useful as any other
development tool when you're concerning yourself with the suitability of the
language to the job at hand.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Since I'm more of a hobbyist than a professional, I'm a one-tool guy.
Curious, you say the latter like it naturally follows on from the former.
I'd have thought it just as likely that being a hobbyist would mean that
you're a multi-tool guy. I know it's the hobbyist side of me that mostly
drives the interest in varied and different languages.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
love Clipper. Some day I may love (x)Harbour. [SNIP]
Arguably, because you "love Clipper", you already "love (x)Harbour". But
you'd have to subscribe to the "Clipper is a language" school of thought.
Oh, look, we're back here again. ;>
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-11 16:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Arguably, because you "love Clipper", you already "love (x)Harbour". But
you'd have to subscribe to the "Clipper is a language" school of thought.
Oh, look, we're back here again. ;>
Dave,

You must be mellowing. <g>

I guess my issue stems from my perhaps-misguided view that programming is
all about precision and exactness. Otherwise, the compiler raises an error.
<g> It then follows (for me) that we should keep our terminology precise
when writing about programming.

We're really not far apart, I just prefer the term Clipper-compatible.

Cheers.

Lee Clinkscales
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 17:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Lee,
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I guess my issue stems from my perhaps-misguided view that programming is
all about precision and exactness. Otherwise, the compiler raises an error.
<g> It then follows (for me) that we should keep our terminology precise
when writing about programming.
We're really not far apart, I just prefer the term Clipper-compatible.
Is Basic a Language or a product?

Don't you agree that almost all languages came to be known by being
implemented as a product, rather then some ANSI standard or the like?

At what point do you agree to qualify a certain well documented
specifications as a language? I mean how many products must implement that
set of specifications before you'd agree to view those specifications as a
language?

Does it take ANSI or some other international standard before a programming
language is accepted as a language?

Let's also view it from the Job Market point of view - Assume for a second
that any of the modern Clipper implementations will indeed become a main
stream product, do you agree that companies might then be seeking "Clipper
Programmers", though the product such developers will use is not Clipper?

Once you open-up to this realization, I hope you'll realize that dBase is
also a language not just a product. In fact it almost achieved international
standard as the xBase language.

Clipper is a well established superset of the xBase language, which due to
it's popularity, and the efforts of many to preserve the language, indeed
reached a status of a language.

Assume you invent a spoken/written language, how many people must be
speaking/writing using your conventions before it's recognized as a
language? On how many continents? How many books must be written?

I used the term *fact* because my argument that Clipper is a language was
fact based - it was based on the fact that the Clipper specifications have
been used to implement a number of compilers that qualify as Clipper
compilers - that is they are able to compile and run any source code meeting
the Clipper language specifications.

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-11 17:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Ron,
Clipper is a well established superset of the xBase language.
Wouldn't you agree that if Clipper is a "language", it wouldn't be a
superset of anything? <G>. No one ever calls C++ a superset of C (
although they have common traits ).

Anyway, no need to argue this point. There's a huge difference between
coding in "stock" Clipper and, for example, Clipper with Classy. How about
Clipper and FiveWin??? There's as much difference between procedural
"stock" Clipper vs event driven, OOP Clipper as there is between dBASE and
Fox or Xbase++ and VO.

I think we all know what we're talking about here.... no need to argue the
semantics.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 19:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Wouldn't you agree that if Clipper is a "language", it wouldn't be a
superset of anything? <G>. No one ever calls C++ a superset of C (
although they have common traits ).
Sorry I must disagree, I belive it's perfectly clear the C++ is a superset
of C (even the name is clear indication).

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-11 20:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Ron,
Sorry I must disagree, I believe it's perfectly clear the C++ is a superset
of C (even the name is clear indication).
You make my point.... ( in a round-a-bout ) kind of way <G>.

If it's clear that Clipper is a superset of xbase, and C++ is a superset of
C..... maybe C++ should not be considered a language either <GGG>.

A conversation such as the following may start to make sense.

A. What computer languages do you use...
B. I know xbase.
A. What products do you use....
B. dBASE and Clipper and xHarbour

A. Know any other languages.
B. Yes, I know C
A. So can you help me with a VC++ app I'm doing.
B. I know C but I don't use C++

... see there's lots of ways to look at it.... but we all know what we're
all trying to say.... so moot point all around <g>.

Al
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Al Acker
Wouldn't you agree that if Clipper is a "language", it wouldn't be a
superset of anything? <G>. No one ever calls C++ a superset of C (
although they have common traits ).
Sorry I must disagree, I belive it's perfectly clear the C++ is a superset
of C (even the name is clear indication).
Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Ron,
Clipper is a well established superset of the xBase language.
Wouldn't you agree that if Clipper is a "language", it wouldn't be a
superset of anything? <G>. No one ever calls C++ a superset of C (
although they have common traits ).
Lots of people call C++ a superset of C. Arguably it's not correct but
there's also no denying that C++ has a family heritage that includes the
likes of C, ObjectiveC, BCPL and others. Likewise, I'm no expert here, but
it is my understanding that there's an evolutionary link between ML, SML and
OCaml they they're all seen as languages in their own right. Over in the
Pascal camp there's a whole family tree of related but different languages.
The same again in the Lisp world.

Languages do evolve from other languages and it's possible to have
evolutionary branches that are seen as a "superset" in terms of ability and
functionality.
Post by Al Acker
Anyway, no need to argue this point. There's a huge difference between
coding in "stock" Clipper and, for example, Clipper with Classy. How about
Clipper and FiveWin???
it's that like saying there's a huge different between coding in C++ and
coding in C++ with MFC (or whatever it's called these days). You're still
using C++, the language, aren't you?
Post by Al Acker
There's as much difference between procedural
"stock" Clipper vs event driven, OOP Clipper as there is between dBASE and
Fox or Xbase++ and VO.
But aren't the differences here programmer ability/intent vs what the
language supports?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 14:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Post by Al Acker
There's as much difference between procedural
"stock" Clipper vs event driven, OOP Clipper as there is between dBASE and
Fox or Xbase++ and VO.
But aren't the differences here programmer ability/intent vs what the
language supports?
Excellent point... it's a fine line... let's go back to the C++
example.... I'd be _almost_ willing to say that there is just about as much
difference between "stock" Clipper and Clipper/Classy/FiveWin, as there is
between C and C++. i.e. Standard Clipper does not "support" the same OOP
extensions and capabilities that Clipper/Classy does..... so does that make
Clipper when used with Classy a unique language? Interesting questions <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
Ron,
Clipper is a well established superset of the xBase language.
Wouldn't you agree that if Clipper is a "language", it wouldn't be a
superset of anything? <G>. No one ever calls C++ a superset of C (
although they have common traits ).
Lots of people call C++ a superset of C. Arguably it's not correct but
there's also no denying that C++ has a family heritage that includes the
likes of C, ObjectiveC, BCPL and others. Likewise, I'm no expert here, but
it is my understanding that there's an evolutionary link between ML, SML and
OCaml they they're all seen as languages in their own right. Over in the
Pascal camp there's a whole family tree of related but different languages.
The same again in the Lisp world.

Languages do evolve from other languages and it's possible to have
evolutionary branches that are seen as a "superset" in terms of ability and
functionality.
Post by Al Acker
Anyway, no need to argue this point. There's a huge difference between
coding in "stock" Clipper and, for example, Clipper with Classy. How about
Clipper and FiveWin???
Isn't that like saying there's a huge different between coding in C++ and
coding in C++ with MFC (or whatever it's called these days). You're still
using C++, the language, aren't you?
Post by Al Acker
There's as much difference between procedural
"stock" Clipper vs event driven, OOP Clipper as there is between dBASE and
Fox or Xbase++ and VO.
But aren't the differences here programmer ability/intent vs what the
language supports?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 18:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
Is Basic a Language or a product?
Did Basic start life as a product as opposed to a language? I only ask this
because I'm a little confused as to the picture you're trying to paint about
Clipper (language vs original "product") by mentioning Basic.
Post by Ron Pinkas
At what point do you agree to qualify a certain well documented
specifications as a language? I mean how many products must implement that
set of specifications before you'd agree to view those specifications as a
language?
[I know this wasn't asked of me but it's an interesting question:] When
someone says "here is a spec for a language" and Zero.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 18:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
Is Basic a Language or a product?
Did Basic start life as a product as opposed to a language? I only ask this
because I'm a little confused as to the picture you're trying to paint about
Clipper (language vs original "product") by mentioning Basic.
I belive it was originated as an educational tool at Dartmouth College, but
I seriously doubt this is where most people know it from. For me it started
as feature of my Sinclair ZX-80, for others (most?) it probably started as
the Basic language on theAltair computer.

[You might prefer the above question directed at Java instead.]
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
At what point do you agree to qualify a certain well documented
specifications as a language? I mean how many products must implement that
set of specifications before you'd agree to view those specifications as a
language?
[I know this wasn't asked of me but it's an interesting question:] When
someone says "here is a spec for a language" and Zero.
Ok, the specs have been with us long time now :-).

[Sorry, what is the "and Zero", I don't understand?]

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 07:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
Is Basic a Language or a product?
Did Basic start life as a product as opposed to a language? I only ask
this because I'm a little confused as to the picture you're trying to
paint about Clipper (language vs original "product") by mentioning
Basic.
I belive it was originated as an educational tool at Dartmouth College,
but I seriously doubt this is where most people know it from.
Ok, good, that's the history I had in mind too. Would we both agree that it
started out as a language? I think that Basic is a little different from
Clipper in that Basic started life as a language in its own right whereas
Clipper started life as a compiler for another language. That, of course,
doesn't detract from the fact that, these days, some of us identify Clipper
as a language in its own right.
Post by Ron Pinkas
For me it
started as feature of my Sinclair ZX-80, for others (most?) it probably
started as the Basic language on theAltair computer.
Me too. The ZX-80 was the first computer I touched (my maths teacher brought
it into school once and I was totally hooked, I actually own one these days)
and the ZX-81 was the first computer I owned and programmed in anger. IIRC
wasn't Sinclair BASIC a variation on a theme of Microsoft BASIC? Or was that
the BASIC in the Pet, VIC-20 and CBM-64? I forget now.

Here in the UK the most common introduction seemed to be via the Sinclair
Spectrum or the VIC-20 and, a little later, the Acorn machines (Atom,
Electron, BBC).
Post by Ron Pinkas
[You might prefer the above question directed at Java instead.]
Again, I'm not sure that Java is a good example in relation to Clipper. I
know what you're trying to say but I don't think it's that good a fit. Java,
internally, turned into something that was, in part, intended to be a
language. In terms of public consumption we've always associated the name
Java with a clearly specified language. Clipper, on the other hand, started
life as a compiler for a language and evolved into something that ended up
spawning something many of us would identify as a separate language (and
which, for want of a better name, we call Clipper).

The more I think about it the more I find that Clipper is somewhat unique in
this regard. I doubt it is but I can't readily think of a language that has
"become" in the same way that Clipper (the language) "became".
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
At what point do you agree to qualify a certain well documented
specifications as a language? I mean how many products must implement
that set of specifications before you'd agree to view those
specifications as a language?
[I know this wasn't asked of me but it's an interesting question:] When
someone says "here is a spec for a language" and Zero.
Ok, the specs have been with us long time now :-).
"The" specs? Which specs do you mean there?
Post by Ron Pinkas
[Sorry, what is the "and Zero", I don't understand?]
You asked two questions in your paragraph above. "Zero" is my answer to the
second question.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
gabor salai
2003-12-12 09:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
Is Basic a Language or a product?
Did Basic start life as a product as opposed to a language? I only ask
this because I'm a little confused as to the picture you're trying to
paint about Clipper (language vs original "product") by mentioning
Basic.
I belive it was originated as an educational tool at Dartmouth College,
but I seriously doubt this is where most people know it from.
Ok, good, that's the history I had in mind too. Would we both agree that it
started out as a language? I think that Basic is a little different from
Clipper in that Basic started life as a language in its own right whereas
Clipper started life as a compiler for another language. That, of course,
doesn't detract from the fact that, these days, some of us identify Clipper
as a language in its own right.
Post by Ron Pinkas
For me it
started as feature of my Sinclair ZX-80, for others (most?) it probably
started as the Basic language on theAltair computer.
Me too. The ZX-80 was the first computer I touched (my maths teacher brought
it into school once and I was totally hooked, I actually own one these days)
and the ZX-81 was the first computer I owned and programmed in anger. IIRC
wasn't Sinclair BASIC a variation on a theme of Microsoft BASIC? Or was that
the BASIC in the Pet, VIC-20 and CBM-64? I forget now.
for that time, i remember, spectrum's basic was the most powerfull, even
compared to expensive professional systems (like hp sold).

there was fully implemented "macro execution feature", late binding!
you could compose, during program performing, any type of expression,
using functions as well, in string (although they weren't represented by
simply ascci text, you had to use their "pcode" replacement byte instead)
and
simply invoke EVAL(macro$) or EVAL$(macro$) depending on type of
return value.
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 09:37:38 UTC
Permalink
there was fully implemented "macro execution feature", late binding! you
could compose, during program performing, any type of expression, using
functions as well, in string (although they weren't represented by simply
ascci text, you had to use their "pcode" replacement byte instead) and
simply invoke EVAL(macro$) or EVAL$(macro$) depending on type of return
value.
Interesting, I don't remember that; although I did go from the ZX-81 to the
VIC-20 and never used a Speccy at all (school had an RML-380Z, my first
exposure to a "proper" computer) and I don't recall that the '81 had that
feature (although I do have an '81 programming book kicking around so I'll
have to go and check).

<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mfg.749117807%40spindle> and
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a9ct2n%24dj2%241%40news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
are interesting in that they seem to suggest that you *could* eval "ASCII
text" on the Speccy.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Markus Wiederstein
2003-12-12 11:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Interesting, I don't remember that; although I did go from the ZX-81 to the
VIC-20 and never used a Speccy at all (school had an RML-380Z, my first
exposure to a "proper" computer) and I don't recall that the '81 had that
feature (although I do have an '81 programming book kicking around so I'll
have to go and check).
Well Gabor, Dave, ... nice t see that you all had you're root on those
fine 8bit machines from the past.

Last month i had a long talk to Michael Devore (Causeway) about assembly
coding on the C=64 ... that really was a trip into my childhood.

For those of you interested, here are some of my C-64 Projects:
http://www.mt-fanpage.de/english/faq-infos/vip/_wiederstein.htm

Cheers, and sorry for the BIG OT ;-)

Markus
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Markus Wiederstein
Last month i had a long talk to Michael Devore (Causeway) about assembly
coding on the C=64 ... that really was a trip into my childhood.
Still got a C=64 here in my office, although it's packed away in a cupboard
at the moment. That said, a few weeks back I happened to stumble upon
<URL:http://dunkels.com/adam/contiki/>, which looks like an awful lot of
fun. I'm quite taken by the idea of getting my 64 on my LAN and, even
better, someone is selling the hardware (ask Nick Ramsay how likely it would
be that I'd be able to build the hardware involved <g>).
Post by Markus Wiederstein
http://www.mt-fanpage.de/english/faq-infos/vip/_wiederstein.htm
You were writing commercially sold games for the 64 as late as 1992? Wow, I
hadn't realised that the market for 64 software had lasted quite that long.
Interesting to see Ubi Soft mentioned too given that Flight Sims are my big
non-programming computing addiction. LO-MAC is my next must-have but I think
I'm gonna need a new graphics card for my simming machine.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Markus Wiederstein
2003-12-12 14:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Still got a C=64 here in my office, although it's packed away in a cupboard
at the moment. That said, a few weeks back I happened to stumble upon
<URL:http://dunkels.com/adam/contiki/>, which looks like an awful lot of
fun. I'm quite taken by the idea of getting my 64 on my LAN and, even
better, someone is selling the hardware (ask Nick Ramsay how likely it
would be that I'd be able to build the hardware involved <g>).
It's really amazing how many things are still done on that fine
commie, i really love that machine and i also have mine here up
and runnin'.

I'm still doing some coding for some projects just for the fun of it,
f.e. there's is a complete rebuild of the old freezer cartridge
called 'Action Replay' or 'Nordic Power' (formerly from Datel Electronics).

I's called "Retro Replay" ... see here
http://www.jschoenfeld.com/products/rreplay_e.htm
http://www.ar.c64.org/

*******************************************************************************

Dave, if you still have your c64 disks not archieved on cd-rom, this is a
must:

Catweasel has always been to allow access to non-standard disks using
normal PC-diskdrives,
even if you usually need a completely different computer for that. The
capacity of the drive does not matter in this case: A 5,25 inch drive with
1,2MByte capacity will read and write a C-64 disk with 170KByte as well as
a 3,5 inch drive with 1,44MByte can access a 1,76MByte Amiga disk.
Together with a company that has specialized in data recovery, we're
working on the implementation of more than 1100 different disk formats,
and it does not matter that this has been classified impossible by others
before. Even the 800KByte disks from older Macintosh computers can be used
in standard 1,44MB drives, although the original drives have rotated their
disks at variable speeds. You can get a complete overview over the
supported formats in the technical data. Even if the format you desire is
not yet supported, it only requires a driver update to get new features
out of the controller.

http://www.jschoenfeld.com/indexe.htm

*********************************************************************************

The most incredible thing is here:
The Commodore One computer started off as a 2002 enhanced adaptation of
the Commodore 64 -the most sold of any computer model (Guiness book of
World Records) While retaining almost all of the original's capabilities
the Commodore One adds modern features, interfacing and capabilities. The
C-One fills a gap in the hobbyist computer market
[snip}
http://c64upgra.de/c-one/

******************************************************************************
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Markus Wiederstein
http://www.mt-fanpage.de/english/faq-infos/vip/_wiederstein.htm
You were writing commercially sold games for the 64 as late as 1992?
Wow, I hadn't realised that the market for 64 software had lasted quite
that long.
yep, it went on till the end of 1994, if i remember right, one of the last
productions for the c-64 was Psygnosys Evergreen 'Lemmings' in a quite
superb
version. (remeber how many lemmings running around with some pseudo KI;-)
Post by Dave Pearson
Interesting to see Ubi Soft mentioned too given that Flight Sims are my
big non-programming computing addiction. LO-MAC is my next must-have but
I think I'm gonna need a new graphics card for my simming machine.
Well Ubi Soft is a very nice french company and over the past 10 years they
have produced lots of quality stuff. When i worked for them as a freelancer
in doing the disk & tape mastering for the final launch i really had a
great
time in france.

Well, if you're interested in some good c-64 resources, let me know.

Markus
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 16:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Still got a C=64 here in my office, although it's packed away in a
cupboard at the moment. That said, a few weeks back I happened to
stumble upon <URL:http://dunkels.com/adam/contiki/>, which looks like an
awful lot of fun. [SNIP]
It's really amazing how many things are still done on that fine commie, i
really love that machine and i also have mine here up and runnin'.
Ohh, now I feel guilty, what with mine living in a dark cupboard here in the
office.
Dave, if you still have your c64 disks not archieved on cd-rom, this is a
[SNIP]
Disks? Disks were for rich kids. Never had a disk unit for it, all my stuff
is still on tape. Well, I say "my stuff", I never wrote much, if anything,
for the 64 as I acquired one of those quite late on (1989 IIRC). The bulk of
my CBM micro coding was done on the VIC20. Still got lots of my own code on
tapes here in the office. I doubt they're readable these days.

Still, <URL:http://www.davep.org/misc/grid-bike/> "lives on" from those
days.
The Commodore One computer started off as a 2002 enhanced adaptation of
the Commodore 64 [SNIP]
Hey, someone should port harbour to it! (he says, trying to drag things back
on topic <g>).
Well, if you're interested in some good c-64 resources, let me know.
Presumably your published email address works? I think you're piqued my
interest.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
gabor salai
2003-12-12 12:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
there was fully implemented "macro execution feature", late binding! you
could compose, during program performing, any type of expression, using
functions as well, in string (although they weren't represented by simply
ascci text, you had to use their "pcode" replacement byte instead) and
simply invoke EVAL(macro$) or EVAL$(macro$) depending on type of return
value.
Interesting, I don't remember that; although I did go from the ZX-81 to the
VIC-20 and never used a Speccy at all (school had an RML-380Z, my first
exposure to a "proper" computer) and I don't recall that the '81 had that
feature (although I do have an '81 programming book kicking around so I'll
have to go and check).
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mfg.749117807%40spindle> and
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a9ct2n%24dj2%241%40news5.svr.pol.c
o.uk>
Post by Dave Pearson
are interesting in that they seem to suggest that you *could* eval "ASCII
text" on the Speccy.
i've checked above, and, no, i don't remember like that. what examples are
showing is just a *printout* of sinclair's basic example.
ascii codes 128 and few dozen of them above were reserved to key-codes, top
of table was reserved for graphic and user defined chars. the had to be
entered pressing alt, shift or some other combination, thus allowing editor
to recognize them. once recognized, they were represented (screen and
printout) as normal text (like "sin" from example), but edit and program
lines held them in key-code format. the other purpose of key-code was to
speed up line execution and save space. have you ever saving space on
zx80/81 with 1 (one) kb of ram, still having workable program?
so, don't confuse those printouts with real key-codes behind.
and, when crating macro string, from editor you had to enter its key-code,
like when typing normal program line, but from program execution you had to
do:
10 let macro$=chr$(133)+"("+chr$(134)+"("+chr$(34)+"25"+chr$(34)+"))"
20 let sinus=eval(macro$)

line 10 should be read as (using clipper mixed quote):
macro$="sin(val('25'))"

assuming 133 is code for "sin" and 134 is code for "val" (just for example,
don't realy have code table behind me). why to use "val"? not only functions
were key-coded, but numbers also. immediately after ascii text of number,
basic lines kept five bytes of its binary representation (either integer or
float point), so the purpose of val was to foolish interpreter, having it to
do conversion of "25" to binary while interpreting lines, instead of
programmer.

and yes, as examples said, it was essentialy the same, there was entry point
at rom (you should say "api") that expected string's memory address to
execute it as regular line. the address might point to editor space, to be
executed as command line, or in program lines memory to be executed during
program, or anywhere inside variable's memory to be executed as macro.

if you missed "The Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly", you missed a lot.
have you ever tried to write "the worlds fastest" drawing routine for
spectrum.
to calculate how much machine cycles are you spending for each pixel, and to
know that you reached the *absolute* speed limit? by the way, the original
spectrum routine from rom was one of the slowest.
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabor salai
if you missed "The Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly", you missed a lot.
have you ever tried to write "the worlds fastest" drawing routine for
spectrum.
Nope, never used a spectrum. As I think I said elsewhere, I jumped from the
ZX81 to the VIC20.

Thanks for clarifying the content of those news posts.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 13:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
I doubt it is but I can't readily think of a language that has
"become" in the same way that Clipper (the language) "became".
Sure you can, if you want to consider Clipper as a unique language, then
you may as well call Visual FoxPro a language and dBASE, alias dB2K, alias
dBASE Plus, a language.... they both have as many "unique extensions" to
xbase as Clipper does. In fact dBASE Inc. now even calls the "language"
used in dBASE.... DBL.

Maybe because you are more familiar with Clipper.... you think it's more
unique (or detached ) from what one would think of as "ansi xbase", but
that's not really the case. All of the major xbase players have "strayed
from the standard" in their own unique ways.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 14:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Dave,
I doubt it is but I can't readily think of a language that has
"become" in the same way that Clipper (the language) "became".
Sure you can, if you want to consider Clipper as a unique language, then
you may as well call Visual FoxPro a language and dBASE, alias dB2K, alias
dBASE Plus, a language.... they both have as many "unique extensions" to
xbase as Clipper does. In fact dBASE Inc. now even calls the "language"
used in dBASE.... DBL.
Personally I think I'd see the dBase lineage as the "trunk" of that tree.
But, yes, there's something to be said for considering the likes of Fox and
I suppose VO. There is, however, one big difference here....
Post by Dave Pearson
Maybe because you are more familiar with Clipper.... you think it's more
unique (or detached ) from what one would think of as "ansi xbase", but
that's not really the case. All of the major xbase players have "strayed
from the standard" in their own unique ways.
Familiarity with Clipper has nothing to do with it, it's about noticing the
number of implementations that makes me think a little differently. Clipper
seems a little different from those other offshoots of that trunk in that
there are multiple independent compiler implementations.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 15:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Familiarity with Clipper has nothing to do with it, it's about noticing the
number of implementations that makes me think a little differently. Clipper
seems a little different from those other offshoots of that trunk in that
there are multiple independent compiler implementations.
Maybe yes and maybe no.... Sure there have been products that we would think
were built from Clipper... that's a valid point.... more so than dBASE and
Fox for sure! But the child products are different enough that you may even
consider them different languages. dBASE ( DBL ) for example has
locals/statics/codeblocks/classes... etc.... but it's different enough to be
considered it's own language.

Another case in point.... take a Clipper programmer ( either Summer 87 or
5.x ) that has never used a third party product, now put him in front of
some Clipper/FiveWin code...or better yet.... VO code and have him make a
change.... or even describe exactly what is going on. Sure he'll recognize
the structures and be able to explain parts of it.... but saying that any
Clipper programmer can sit right down and be comfortable with VO code is a
leap of faith <g>. If both Clipper and VO were the same "language", you
would think you could interchange programmers.

I feel much more comfortable describing the language as xbase and the
implementation Clipper, or VO, or Harbour, or Xbase++, dBASE, Fox etc. ....
if not..... tell me exactly what you feel the common thread is that makes
__Clipper__ __Clipper__.... it's not the pre-processor / locals / statics /
codeblocks... dBASE for example has all of that... so what would it be???

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 16:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Familiarity with Clipper has nothing to do with it, it's about noticing the
number of implementations that makes me think a little differently. Clipper
seems a little different from those other offshoots of that trunk in that
there are multiple independent compiler implementations.
Maybe yes and maybe no.... Sure there have been products that we would
think were built from Clipper... that's a valid point.... more so than
dBASE and Fox for sure! But the child products are different enough that
you may even consider them different languages. dBASE ( DBL ) for example
has locals/statics/codeblocks/classes... etc.... but it's different enough
to be considered it's own language.
But would you not agree that DBL is one step along in the evolution of that
part of the evolutionary tree? That it borrowed stuff from another part of
the tree (in this case it would seem that it borrowed heavily from Clipper)
is interesting but I don't think it detracts from the point of view that
sees a family called Xbase and identifies parts of that family of languages
as languages in their own right and with their own names.

Take Lisp as another (richer and older) example. Today, right now, there are
many and varied languages which are, by some, seen as been part of the Lisp
family of languages. Common Lisp, elisp and scheme are probably the most
recognisable members of that family. There's also Dylan, which is very much
related but, on the surface, looks very different. Arc's coming one day in
the future (I'm not holding my breath). Then there are the languages that
aren't quite languages but might be, such as rep; it started life as
something that was more or less an elisp implementation but, these days,
it's mutated into something that is more or less a scheme implementation.

All of the above are in some way a descendant of Lisp 1.5. It's a pretty
muddled family history and it isn't always easy to put your finger in what's
a language and what isn't but, at the same time, you can generally speak in
terms of Common Lisp and Scheme being languages and people tend not to
worry. Indeed, these days, if you say Lisp it can be assumed that, by
default, you're talking about ANSI Common Lisp. And, yet, at the same time,
people can be happy that Lisp means any language with lots of "annoying and
scary parentheses".
Post by Dave Pearson
Another case in point.... take a Clipper programmer ( either Summer 87 or
5.x ) that has never used a third party product, now put him in front of
some Clipper/FiveWin code...
Take a C++ programmer that has never used a third party product, now put him
in front of Microsoft's or Borland's offerings with all those bells and
whistles. Again, I don't think it's helpful to start to confuse a
programmer's experience and knowledge with what the core language makes
possible.
Post by Dave Pearson
or better yet.... VO code and have him make a
change.... or even describe exactly what is going on.
I'm not sure I'd actually include VO in the set of implementations that I'd
call "Clipper compilers". There's no doubt that its lineage descends from
Clipper, but...
Post by Dave Pearson
Sure he'll recognize
the structures and be able to explain parts of it.... but saying that any
Clipper programmer can sit right down and be comfortable with VO code is a
leap of faith <g>.
It's also a red herring IMO.
Post by Dave Pearson
If both Clipper and VO were the same "language", you
would think you could interchange programmers.
Right. Is somebody saying that Clipper and VO are the same language? But,
even if they were, don't you recognise that you could conduct the same
exercise with other languages such as C++? Throw in enough extras and you're
going to make life interesting for someone who only knows the bare language.
Remember how, in the days of 3.0, Borland added quite a few Windows specific
bits to the language itself? IIRC Microsoft did something similar but
different. It's hardly a revelation that someone can know a language but not
know a full development environment and support structure based around that
language.
Post by Dave Pearson
I feel much more comfortable describing the language as xbase and the
implementation Clipper, or VO, or Harbour, or Xbase++, dBASE, Fox etc.
.... if not..... tell me exactly what you feel the common thread is that
makes __Clipper__ __Clipper__.... it's not the pre-processor / locals /
statics / codeblocks... dBASE for example has all of that... so what would
it be???
If you can take some reasonably clean Clipper code, pre-processor tricks,
code block tricks, etc, and throw it at the current incarnation of dBase
without much worry then, perhaps, dBase has mutated into a Clipper compiler?

I think the point here is that a language isn't just defined by a standard
or by a tick list of sorts; a language can be more than the sum of its
parts. This discussion has happened many times before and it always seems to
hinge on either product naming and/or trademark issues or individual
features or facilities. I think that, in part, a language can also be
defined by a community and how it communicates via code. While I acknowledge
your discomfort in regard to the idea of Clipper as a name of a language --
something that names an area on a wider map of the Xbase world -- I do find
it a little odd that you feel that discomfort. From where I'm sat, and I
don't think I'm alone here, Xbase, DBL *and* Clipper all exist, just like
Lisp, Common Lisp and Scheme all exist.

The main thrust being, if someone is only comfortable with programming in
"Clipper" it doesn't have to follow that they're only capable of producing
DBF-using DOS (or, I guess, Win16) based solutions (which is where this
discussion about "Clipper the product" vs "Clipper the language" sprang
from) and, moreover, it needn't be suggested that that's all their capable
of because they're happy to acknowledge that Clipper is a name used for a
language that is a common base for a handful of different compiler
implementations.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 17:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
I do find it a little odd that you feel that discomfort. From where I'm sat,
and I
don't think I'm alone here, Xbase, DBL *and* Clipper all exist, just like
Lisp, Common Lisp and Scheme all exist.
Find discomfort most likely isn't the right term here.... I'm just tossing
some ideas at you to see what makes sense and what doesn't. Here's a case
in point.

You're at Comdex.... you start up a conversation with someone else in the
hot dog line <g> and the conversation finally gets around to the fact that
you both are programmers.... Then your hear this person state he's a
"Clipper programmer".... to me, this doesn't define him well enough.... OK,
so I figure, he knows at least Summer '87 code. Now has he ever used OOP
with Clipper? Has he ever created any Windows software ( or maybe a better
question would be event driven gui code ).... Has he ever worked with
anything other than the CA compiler?

My point is not that "Clipper" should not be called a language.... if that's
the case it's too general for me and if you get that general, you may as
well just say "xBase" and then define more correctly....

i.e. "xBase using VO", "xBase using Clipper 5.3" since, as you say dBASE
has mutated.... so have others.... so what used to define Clipper as unique,
isn't the case anymore.

To re-state....What I'm trying to say is if you call Clipper a language,
being a "Clipper" programmer isn't a defining statement anymore.... so much
of the other products have bits and parts of Clipper that you may as well
say "xBase" and then drill down to exactly what "flavor" of "xBase" you're
talking about. <g>.

Don't know if I adequately stated what I'm trying to get at here or not...
we've buried this topic pretty deep already <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 18:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Post by Dave Pearson
Arguably, because you "love Clipper", you already "love (x)Harbour". But
you'd have to subscribe to the "Clipper is a language" school of thought.
Oh, look, we're back here again. ;>
You must be mellowing. <g>
I must? In what sense?
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I guess my issue stems from my perhaps-misguided view that programming is
all about precision and exactness. Otherwise, the compiler raises an
error. <g> It then follows (for me) that we should keep our terminology
precise when writing about programming.
The distinction between Clipper the language and CA-Clipper the compiler
seems pretty precise to me. Moreover, should I take it that because I've
been happy with the idea of Clipper the language and CA-Clipper the compiler
that I'm not interested in "precise and exactness"? Does it perhaps mark me
out as someone who isn't really much of a programmer?
Post by Lee Clinkscales
We're really not far apart, I just prefer the term Clipper-compatible.
Funnily enough you'll also see that term used too. That said, if you think
about it, what does it mean? Does it mean that it's language compatible or
does it mean that it's compiler/make/linker compatible? IOW, is it
compatible with how the implementation works (drop it in as a replacement
and run your build batch file and it just works) or is it compatible with
the language? Or both?

It seems to me that "Clipper-compatible" is just as precise in that there's
just as much ambiguity.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 17:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Lee,
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Thanks for a reasonable explanation -- as opposed to Ron's stating his
position as "*fact*."
The facts involved are undisputed, right?

Think of Java, did it not start as a product designed for very specific
internal need of Sun? What do you call programmers using JBuilder from
Borland? Are they not Java Programmers? What in your opinion is different in
that situation, that makes it an acceptable fact, as opposed to the facts I
shared with you?

Ron
Al Acker
2003-12-10 22:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Ron,,
The facts supporting my statement, are the existence of
at least 7 products/platforms aiming to be modern implementation of the
Clipper language. Just look at:

- C3
- Clip
- CULE
- FlagShip
- Harbour
- xBase++
- xHarbour

Therefore I'm more then puzzled by your "there is little reason for someone
to _learn_ Clipper at this point." statement.

As you can see there are many good reasons for anyone to learn the Clipper
language.
If I was starting from dead scratch and wanted to make a living writing
software, your list above is the perfect reason to NOT learn Clipper. Just
take a look at any web site which serves up programming contracts.... or go
to any of the larger headhunters out there.... the percentage of jobs
available for the above list.... ( or any Xbase language for that matter )
vs jobs listed for things like VB etc don't compare.

Now I can't stand VB, and if it were the only language out there.... I may
go back to working as an EE <G>. But you can't debate the fact that for
someone starting out and wanting to make a living with software.... Xbase
isn't exactly the hottest ticket out there right now <GGG>.

Al

--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I could assume that since you have been in c.l.c. for some time now that
you
Post by Lee Clinkscales
have a fairly thick skin. However, Let me just say that I appreciate your
comments here and I agree with what I think you meant -- that there is
little reason for someone to _learn_ Clipper at this point. This does not
mean that someone should not learn an xbase language. There are many fine
developers available today with a more thorough knowledge of Clipper than
any newbie is likely to achieve. As I see it, there is an over-supply of
good Clipper developers.
Lee, now I must direct my same comment at you, because you seem to
completely discount the *fact* that Clipper is an established LANGUAGE, and
not just a product! The facts supporting my statement, are the existence of
at least 7 products/platforms aiming to be modern implementation of the
- C3
- Clip
- CULE
- FlagShip
- Harbour
- xBase++
- xHarbour
Therefore I'm more then puzzled by your "there is little reason for someone
to _learn_ Clipper at this point." statement.
As you can see there are many good reasons for anyone to learn the Clipper
language.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Before I get flamed, just let me say that I love Clipper. I have never
used
Post by Lee Clinkscales
anything but the xbase language and may some day find out what
(x)Harbour
Post by Ron Pinkas
is
Post by Lee Clinkscales
all about. I do not make my living writing code.
Well, this may explain your problem - it's sad that you took the liberty of
giving such advice, *knowing* that your information regarding the subject is
obviously lacking.
Post by Lee Clinkscales
I believe that you, Ray, did the OP a service for pointing out that
Clipper
Post by Lee Clinkscales
is not where you would recommend he start if he intends to do serious
programming.
Both Ray, and yourself, did the OP, [and the entire Clipper Developers
community] a serious disservice, with such uninformed statements.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-10 23:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Al,
Post by Al Acker
If I was starting from dead scratch and wanted to make a living writing
software, your list above is the perfect reason to NOT learn Clipper.
Just
Post by Al Acker
take a look at any web site which serves up programming contracts.... or go
to any of the larger headhunters out there.... the percentage of jobs
available for the above list.... ( or any Xbase language for that matter )
vs jobs listed for things like VB etc don't compare.
I never got any job from any web site serving programming contracts, and I
never cared about headhunters either. I suppose many programmers are much
like me, they simply want a tool which allows them to be most productive.
Post by Al Acker
Now I can't stand VB, and if it were the only language out there.... I may
go back to working as an EE <G>. But you can't debate the fact that for
someone starting out and wanting to make a living with software.... Xbase
isn't exactly the hottest ticket out there right now <GGG>.
Again, I could care less about xBase, I speak of the Clipper language, now
available under few modern 32bit Compilers.

My outlook is very simple:

1. Clipper was arguably one of the most popular business development
language.

2. Clipper was arguably one of the most productive business development
language.

3. Clipper was "murdered" by CA as opposed to reaching it's natural end of
life, as most products do.

4. Clipper can regain popularity once it's availability under multiple
modern implementations, will become more known.

5. The explosive rate of development of RTL, 3rd party products, GUIs, etc.,
make me confident that the conditional part of 4 above is just a matter of
time.

6. I strongly believe that XBScript (Full Clipper implementation for WSH,
HTML, and ASP and any other ActiveScript Host) will yet again help Clipper
regain the market place it properly deserves. I'm confident Clipper is far
more powerful and elegant then VBScript, and JScript, as well as Perl,
Python, PHP, etc..

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 09:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
I never got any job from any web site serving programming contracts, and I
never cared about headhunters either. I suppose many programmers are much
like me, they simply want a tool which allows them to be most productive.
Change "want a tool which allows" to "want tools which allow" and I'd be in
agreement (personally I find the idea of a programmer with a single tool
that does everything quite abhorrent). But, of course, you're then into the
horrible place of needing to decide what a "programmer" is. It's worth
keeping in mind the often mentioned statistic¹ that the vast majority of
"programmers" are people who work in-house for some large organisation and
knock out bits and bobs of software to solve company-internal problems.
These are the sorts of people who are seem to be replaceable components and
they're probably the positions, the components, who are seen as needing to
know nothing more than the most popular bit of development software. Anyone
wishing to make a living being one of those components will probably do well
to heed Al's advice.

That, of course, makes a further interesting situation in that such
organisations jump on that bandwagon and fill up advert web sites with
adverts for such jobs. People like Al take this to be some measure of
popularity whereas what it might be, in part, is a measure of a lack of
understanding of what makes a good tool by people who make decisions in
large organisations.

In other words, coming back to your point, anyone can play Al's metric any
way they want but it has no real impact on the fact that a programmer who
has the ability to make decisions about tools might well be in a position to
make a decision that best fits their problem.
Post by Ron Pinkas
6. I strongly believe that XBScript (Full Clipper implementation for WSH,
HTML, and ASP and any other ActiveScript Host) will yet again help Clipper
regain the market place it properly deserves. I'm confident Clipper is far
more powerful and elegant then VBScript, and JScript, as well as Perl,
Python, PHP, etc..
Interesting. Why are you confident that Clipper is more powerful than those
other languages, especially the latter three? Would you also include Ruby in
that list? Do you think Clipper is more elegant than Ruby too? How come?

-----
¹ Which I can't quote myself but personal experience suggests that it's
probably very true. One day I'll find out what the current state of play is.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 10:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
6. I strongly believe that XBScript (Full Clipper implementation for WSH,
HTML, and ASP and any other ActiveScript Host) will yet again help Clipper
regain the market place it properly deserves. I'm confident Clipper is far
more powerful and elegant then VBScript, and JScript, as well as Perl,
Python, PHP, etc..
Interesting. Why are you confident that Clipper is more powerful than those
other languages, especially the latter three? Would you also include Ruby in
that list? Do you think Clipper is more elegant than Ruby too? How come?
I can't talk about Ruby, because I never had the chance to review it. As to
Perl, Python, and PHP, yes I'm convinced, yet I acknoledge this must be a
matter of personal point of view.

[In all sincerety I belive that practically any language must be more
elegent then those last 3, but that's clearly O.T.]

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 12:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
Interesting. Why are you confident that Clipper is more powerful than
those other languages, especially the latter three? Would you also
include Ruby in that list? Do you think Clipper is more elegant than
Ruby too? How come?
I can't talk about Ruby, because I never had the chance to review it. As
to Perl, Python, and PHP, yes I'm convinced, yet I acknoledge this must be
a matter of personal point of view.
Care to flesh that opinion out?
Post by Ron Pinkas
[In all sincerety I belive that practically any language must be more
elegent then those last 3, but that's clearly O.T.]
perl and PHP I can almost understand (for some values of elegance). But
python? Really? What do you find so inelegant about python that you think
practically any language must be more elegant than it? Note that I don't
think this is clearly OT in that you're talking about comparing the elegance
of "Clipper" the language with other languages so this is a useful way of
getting to know how you define this metric and how people should read it
when you talk up Clipper.

I mean, you're not just talking it up 'cos you've got a compiler to flog,
right? ;>
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 20:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
I can't talk about Ruby, because I never had the chance to review it. As
to Perl, Python, and PHP, yes I'm convinced, yet I acknoledge this must be
a matter of personal point of view.
Care to flesh that opinion out?
Sorry I don't understand, how can we measure/argue such abstract matter.
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
[In all sincerety I belive that practically any language must be more
elegent then those last 3, but that's clearly O.T.]
perl and PHP I can almost understand (for some values of elegance). But
python? Really? What do you find so inelegant about python that you think
practically any language must be more elegant than it? Note that I don't
think this is clearly OT in that you're talking about comparing the elegance
of "Clipper" the language with other languages so this is a useful way of
getting to know how you define this metric and how people should read it
when you talk up Clipper.
Dave this is a very personal matter, it would be almost like arguing about
art, I don't care for Picasso, and for you he may the best artist ever.

I don't find this elegant:

a, b = 0, 1

I find this far more elegant:

LOCAL a := 0, b := 1

Or:

a = 0 ; b = 1

I'm just as puzzled about the choice to define logic blocks by means of
indentation, and many other such issues as they relate to me.
Post by Dave Pearson
I mean, you're not just talking it up 'cos you've got a compiler to flog,
right? ;>
Not that I'm aware of, after all WHY did I choose to contribute to
[x]Harbour as opposed to the many other projects incvolving other languages?
;-)

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 08:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
Post by Ron Pinkas
I can't talk about Ruby, because I never had the chance to review it.
As to Perl, Python, and PHP, yes I'm convinced, yet I acknoledge this
must be a matter of personal point of view.
Care to flesh that opinion out?
Sorry I don't understand, how can we measure/argue such abstract matter.
I'm not asking you to measure or argue it. I'm asking you if you could flesh
that opinion out. Presumably it didn't pop into your head one day,
unannounced. I'm assuming that there was some thought process involved.
Post by Ron Pinkas
Dave this is a very personal matter, it would be almost like arguing about
art, I don't care for Picasso, and for you he may the best artist ever.
I'm not asking you to defend anything, but, of course, I'm interested in
your personal taste and, moreover, your personal taste is of some importance
when you make public comparisons between different languages.
Post by Ron Pinkas
a, b = 0, 1
LOCAL a := 0, b := 1
IIRC they're two very different things. Perhaps I'm confusing python with
something else here but isn't the former code a tuple operation? Is there
something about python that stops you from writing something akin to the
latter?
Post by Ron Pinkas
I'm just as puzzled about the choice to define logic blocks by means of
indentation, and many other such issues as they relate to me.
Significant whitespace is, err, interesting and it is one issue I do have
with python. Then again, at the same time, it's never actually been a
problem for me in that I do indent code and I've got a great editor that
makes the work effortless. Significant whitespace is very much one of those
Marmite issues (you either love it or you hate it) but I'm not sure I'd
personally mark it down as an elegance issue.
Post by Ron Pinkas
Post by Dave Pearson
I mean, you're not just talking it up 'cos you've got a compiler to
flog, right? ;>
Not that I'm aware of, after all WHY did I choose to contribute to
[x]Harbour as opposed to the many other projects incvolving other
languages? ;-)
Oh, come off it Ron, everyone knows that xHarbour Inc is the culmination of
a grand and evil conspiracy, which has you at the head, to make easy money
out of free software. I mean, come on, these Clipper programmers, loyal to
the last and gullible in the extreme. Easier to part from their money than
any other language based community on the face of usenet. I mean, really, do
you think the python or ruby communities would have let you get away with
your dastardly plan?

Wait, there's a knock on the door. What's that say on his uniform, "xHarbour
Police", oh shi...asdh346&*^* Obcayuasdi76%*%&$"
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 14:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Oh, come off it Ron, everyone knows that xHarbour Inc is the culmination of
a grand and evil conspiracy, which has you at the head, to make easy money
out of free software. I mean, come on, these Clipper programmers, loyal to
the last and gullible in the extreme. Easier to part from their money than
any other language based community on the face of usenet. I mean, really, do
you think the python or ruby communities would have let you get away with
your dastardly plan?
What Ron is taking advantage of is the fact that the typical Clipper
programmer is very lazy... i.e. they will do __anything__ to avoid learning
something new.... Also, it's been so long since they __have__ had__ to learn
anything new that they have completely forgotten that they have the ability
to do so! Ron is just taking advantage of this unique "trait" that most
Clipper programmers have.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 15:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pearson
Dave,
Oh, come off it Ron, everyone knows that xHarbour Inc is the culmination of
a grand and evil conspiracy, [SNIP]
What Ron is taking advantage of is the fact that the typical Clipper
programmer is very lazy... i.e. they will do __anything__ to avoid
learning something new.... Also, it's been so long since they __have__
had__ to learn anything new that they have completely forgotten that they
have the ability to do so!
Yikes, and I was only mucking around.
Post by Dave Pearson
Ron is just taking advantage of this unique
"trait" that most Clipper programmers have.
Unique trait? Are you kidding? In my experience almost every language,
especially "player" languages, have people associated with them that have
that trait.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 16:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Post by Dave Pearson
Yikes, and I was only mucking around.
So was it, but you must admit there's some truth to it. <g>
Unique trait? Are you kidding? In my experience almost every language,
especially "player" languages, have people associated with them that have
that trait.
For sure, I was being unfair to Clipper community.... that "trait" is all
over the place. If you want to see it in spades, run over to the dBASE NG.
Those guys will do __anything__ and take any amount of abuse from the parent
company.... just so they don't have to admit there are other paths they
could take that would be a lot better. dBASE types are so bad off that
they lie to themselves.... dismissing the facts that there could be better
ways to go ( and even still stay with "xbase" ).

I had a dz or so of them swear that dBASE was faster than C++ and they
wouldn't shut up till I posted a demo program <g>. Then of course they
stated that I took unfair advantage of all the dBASE bad points.... (fyi...
the program opened up tables.... appended records, created indexes ... etc
etc... ) < ROF'L >. It was amazing to watch to say the least!!!

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Al Acker
2003-12-11 17:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Ron,
Post by Ron Pinkas
My outlook is very simple
You forgot one item. You have a primary interest in the success of xHarbour
<g>. But I mostly agree with all your other items. Problem is, Clipper
does not now have a company like CA that can push it and the competition out
there is fierce.

For independent software companies like mine.... we have to go with what
gives our clients the best bang for their buck.. If we don't, we don't get
the jobs.

You have to consider the finished application, as well as the long term
scalibility and maintainability of the system. Most of the IT departments
of furtune 100/500's will not consider any Xbase application right now.
In our company, we can turn out C++ and Delphi apps just as quick ( quicker
now ) then we could ever turn out any xbase apps... so there are no
advantages on the "time to completion" and performance fronts. So your
advice would be to turn down and work unless we can do the job using the
Clipper language? ( I think we'll pass on that advice <g> ).

But don't mistake the above for any lack of encouragement for your efforts.
I've always loved the Clipper language ( ie it's dialect of Xbase <g> )....
and I wish you the best of luck with your efforts.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Ron Pinkas
2003-12-11 18:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Al,
Post by Al Acker
You forgot one item. You have a primary interest in the success of xHarbour
<g>. But I mostly agree with all your other items. Problem is, Clipper
does not now have a company like CA that can push it and the competition out
there is fierce.
I can speak for only one company, that's xHarbour.com Inc., and thank god
it's NOT at all like CA. :-)

We are very well funded, and I'm confident you'll see more of us in th near
future.
Post by Al Acker
You have to consider the finished application, as well as the long term
scalibility and maintainability of the system. Most of the IT departments
of furtune 100/500's will not consider any Xbase application right now.
In our company, we can turn out C++ and Delphi apps just as quick ( quicker
now ) then we could ever turn out any xbase apps... so there are no
advantages on the "time to completion" and performance fronts. So your
advice would be to turn down and work unless we can do the job using the
Clipper language? ( I think we'll pass on that advice <g> ).
Where did you see me tryng to give any advice, let alone that kind of
advice?
Post by Al Acker
But don't mistake the above for any lack of encouragement for your efforts.
I've always loved the Clipper language ( ie it's dialect of Xbase <g> )....
and I wish you the best of luck with your efforts.
Thanks,

Ron
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 09:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Acker
If I was starting from dead scratch and wanted to make a living writing
software, your list above is the perfect reason to NOT learn Clipper. Just
take a look at any web site which serves up programming contracts.... or
go to any of the larger headhunters out there.... the percentage of jobs
available for the above list.... ( or any Xbase language for that matter )
vs jobs listed for things like VB etc don't compare.
This view only works if you're aiming to get into programming by learning
the most popular tool available and they hawk yourself around all the jobs
available. Admittedly it's one way to make a living but I do think it's a
little different from deciding to be a programmer and someone who learns and
uses languages. And, moreover, you sort of personally demonstrate that the
above thinking makes little sense if you actually want to get into the art
of software development. All these VB job ads and yet you have a documented
preference for a variation of C++.

Time for my favourite Erik Naggum quote...
--
The volume of job ads reflects the number of people who quit those jobs and
are deemed replaceable by placing job ads, not the jobs people want to hold
on to.
Erik Naggum in comp.lang.lisp <***@naggum.no>
Al Acker
2003-12-11 18:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
All these VB job ads and yet you have a documented preference for a
variation of C++.

You bet, mainly because there is also a large supply of jobs that do require
the tools we prefer to use. <g>.

All ( that's ALL ) things being equal, we'll pick the best tool for the
job... after that, it's personal preference.

If an IT departments asks me to for a quote on a job and it must be VB, (and
there is other work available ) I'll most likely turn it down due to
personal preference. On the other hand, if I was completely out of work and
needed to eat <g>.... knowing VB would be quite the advantage. <g>.

Having a complete set of tools at your disposal is a must when you're
working on multiple and varied projects for multiple and varied clients (
esp when you have to match those clients "standards"). I think I can say
without a doubt, (for the type of work we're doing right now and the clients
we have right now ), that if Clipper ( or any xbase product ) was all we
could use.... we'd be in a very poor position to continue in business.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 12:34:33 UTC
Permalink
[SNIP] I think I can say
without a doubt, (for the type of work we're doing right now and the
clients we have right now ), that if Clipper ( or any xbase product ) was
all we could use.... we'd be in a very poor position to continue in
business.
Interesting, what do you mean by that. Do you mean Clipper as in CA-Clipper
or do you mean that Clipper, the language, couldn't have evolved into
something that would be useful for you today? Like, imagine for a moment
that Borland had purchased Nantucket and Delphi had been based around
Clipper instead of Pascal (oh to live in *that* universe), or something, are
you suggesting that the language would have caused you to go out of
business?

Or do you mean that if you'd never kept learning new things and tinkering
with your skills you'd have gone out of business? That makes sense, probably
more so given the nature of what you say you do.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 14:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
Or do you mean that if you'd never kept learning new things and tinkering
with your skills you'd have gone out of business? That makes sense, probably
more so given the nature of what you say you do.
Exactly.... and you see examples of this every day.... How many times have
you seen some obscure Clipper programmer, that you've never heard of before,
pop up on this NG is a panic because they just discovered their old trusty
Clipper 5.2 or worse.... Summer 87 doesn't play well with today's OS or
Windows printers. <g>.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 15:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Exactly.... and you see examples of this every day.... How many times have
you seen some obscure Clipper programmer, that you've never heard of
before, pop up on this NG is a panic because they just discovered their
old trusty Clipper 5.2 or worse.... Summer 87 doesn't play well with
today's OS or Windows printers. <g>.
Something like twice a day, I think. Although I don't know if it is fair to
call them "obscure", I'm sure they're well known to someone. ;)

I think the point here though is that there is a difference between talking
about Clipper the language (which doesn't have to have this problem) and
CA-Clipper v5.2 or older (which is obviously a cause of discomfort for more
and more people). I think Ron's take on this, stripped of the language that
some people might have a problem with, is that those who get on best with
Clipper need not fall into the trap you highlight above.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 16:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
I think the point here though is that there is a difference between talking
about Clipper the language (which doesn't have to have this problem) and
CA-Clipper v5.2 or older (which is obviously a cause of discomfort for more
and more people). I think Ron's take on this, stripped of the language that
some people might have a problem with, is that those who get on best with
Clipper need not fall into the trap you highlight above.
Yes, I'll buy that for sure. Only caveat to that I would add is some form
of "buyer beware" clause. The person needs to realize that they are moving
from a product that used to be one of the "standards".... i.e. CA-Clipper
into an arena where the user bases are smaller, the support __may__ not be
as good... ( I have to ROFL thinking CA support was "good" ).... but you get
the idea.... the fact that you're talking an already small community and
moving to an even smaller one ( i.e. Xbase++, Harbour, xHarbour... you name
it ).... has to be done with more than a little concern... ( it would be for
me anyway ).

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com
Dave Pearson
2003-12-12 16:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I'll buy that for sure. Only caveat to that I would add is some form
of "buyer beware" clause. The person needs to realize that they are moving
from a product that used to be one of the "standards".... i.e. CA-Clipper
into an arena where the user bases are smaller, the support __may__ not be
as good... ( I have to ROFL thinking CA support was "good" ).... but you
get the idea.... the fact that you're talking an already small community
and moving to an even smaller one ( i.e. Xbase++, Harbour, xHarbour... you
name it ).... has to be done with more than a little concern... ( it would
be for me anyway ).
And, yet, there's something to be said for making use of a tool that, at its
heart, is free software. As we've discussed more than once before: there's a
lot to be said for making use of a tool that's already under "public"
control. Sure, we know the problems with that, but one of the upsides is
that you don't end up with someone doing a CA on you.

CA-Clipper is proof, if any is needed, that there is no safety in numbers.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Al Acker
2003-12-12 17:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
And, yet, there's something to be said for making use of a tool that, at its
heart, is free software. As we've discussed more than once before: there's a
lot to be said for making use of a tool that's already under "public"
control. Sure, we know the problems with that, but one of the upsides is
that you don't end up with someone doing a CA on you.

CA-Clipper is proof, if any is needed, that there is no safety in numbers.
No argument from me on those points! The numbers can change very
quickly.... and that is what scares most of the larger companies into _not_
using some of the products we've been talking about. <g>. Now if that is a
valid concern or not is up to debate.... but those are the facts that some
of us have to deal with on a daily bases.

Al
--
Al Acker, President
Acker Consulting, Inc.
mailto:***@thexbasefiles.com
http://www.ackerconsulting.com

Lee Clinkscales
2003-12-09 19:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Ben,

You might be intimidated by what your message sparked. Don't be. Let us know
more about what you want to do.

Lee Clinkscales
Post by Ben Rankin
I've been looking around on the web trying to get an overview of Clipper
development.
Ben Rankin
2003-12-11 17:08:48 UTC
Permalink
I guess I should have asked something less inflammatory like "Is war in Iraq
a good thing?" ;)

I do some programming currently in VB and C. My company is still using an
old Clipper 5.x application for inventory and sales. The program is called
Dayo (www.dayo.com). It's got plenty of limitations but we have lots of
users who are comfortable with it and we use Access and Alpha 4 to
manipulate tables and do reporting which is the only reason we've been able
to continue to use it for so long. We've been searching for a better
solution for some time, but still haven't arrived at something that the
company wants to spend a lot of money on.

The reason I am looking into the actual Clipper programming language is that
the developer of the program will be coming for a site visit to make some
changes that we have requested. I have been trying to prepare for that visit
by looking at what's going on in the Clipper community and asking some
questions. I bought a used Clipper book off Amazon, but I haven't received
it yet.

Printing in windows is one problem that we seek to fix. I know that if we
can print to a text file that there are 3rd party spooler programs that can
fix that. I would like to know what xBase++ can do to resolve this as well,
and how much work(programming) does it take?

Other issues are just changing fields on the interface forms and a host of
specific business logic changes. What are the options to take existing code
and creating a new interface that is a "real" window that allows for more
font control and the like as opposed to the current DOS front end?

As far as the current discussion goes I see both sides. Yes, there are new
tools out there for Clipper development and some people and businesses will
be able to use them well. There are plenty of experience Clipper programmers
out there who can probably cover most of the demand but I don't foresee a
surge in demand for Clipper that is going to take VB, C, Java, etc..down.
There will always be a need for programmers in even the most obscure
language (I'm not including Clipper in the obscure category, so please don't
bite.) but I think the original responder was just trying to say was, "Hey,
don't pick Clipper if you want to be able to easily find a programming job
because most jobs are going to use something else." I think that's a
statement that we should all be able to agree with.

A last note. I'm ashamed that I didn't pay enough attention to see that
bLinker is a linker.

BR
Post by Lee Clinkscales
Ben,
You might be intimidated by what your message sparked. Don't be. Let us know
more about what you want to do.
Lee Clinkscales
Post by Ben Rankin
I've been looking around on the web trying to get an overview of Clipper
development.
Dave Pearson
2003-12-11 18:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Rankin
There will always be a need for programmers in even the most obscure
language (I'm not including Clipper in the obscure category, so please
don't bite.) [SNIP]
Compared to the recognition it had ten or so years ago I think it would be
fair to say that Clipper *is* an obscure language and I doubt anyone could
seriously bite you if you were including it in that category. I'd be happy
to include it in that category. Besides, there's an argument that obscure is
good <URL:http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html>.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Pritpal Bedi
2003-12-11 19:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Ben
Post by Ben Rankin
Printing in windows is one problem that we seek to fix. I know that if we
can print to a text file that there are 3rd party spooler programs that can
fix that. I would like to know what xBase++ can do to resolve this as well,
and how much work(programming) does it take?
Please give Vouch32.lib, an extended utilities library for Clipper, Xbase++
and xHarbour. It is free and will provide you solutions for most of your
needs.

Out of the current thread context, but....

Regards

Pritpal Bedi | a student of software analysis and design
http://www.vouchcac.com | Vouch, the software that grows with you
http://www.vouchcac.com/vouch32/vouch32.htm | A Free Windows Extended
Utilities library for Clipper, Xbase++ & xHarbour
http://www.vouch.ws/Vouch32 | Vouch32.lib Support Web-Board
Loading...