[XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++
ilias
with many future possibilities.
I have a few questions regarding xHarbour:
-
Is the source of xHarbour.org identical to the source used in commercial
distribution of xHarbour.com?
Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
In which language is the xIDE written?
Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g. code-generators)?
can i extend the xIDE?
if yes, in which language?
can i use 3rd-party VCL components with xIDE / xHarbour?
Is there any migration-guide available?
Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
limitations)?
Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which limitations)?
-
I hope this is not to much at once.
Thanks in advance for your time!
valusoft
Hello Ilias,
I suggest that you will receive a better set of answers if you ask
your questions at the newsgroup established for xHarbour.
Regards,
Ross McKenzie
ValuSoft
Melbourne Australia
ilias
[...]
>> I hope this is not to much at once.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your time!
>
> Hello Ilias,
>
> I suggest that you will receive a better set of answers if you ask
> your questions at the newsgroup established for xHarbour.
>
> news.xharbour.org
I understand your suggestion.
news.xharbour.org is not feeded to usenet and thus not archieved in google.
additionally, my questions affects xBase++, too and some general clipper
things will follow.
thus i've posted here.
Thank you for your friendly suggestion.
pe
news:oprvohpw...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> I've read some things abou xHarbour.com and i looks like a nice product
> with many future possibilities.
Answers to some of these qustions should be found in the same place.
> Is the source of xHarbour.org identical to the source used in commercial
> distribution of xHarbour.com?
Yes.
> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
A perview version will be available in December.
> In which language is the xIDE written?
xHarbour
> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
code-generators)?
A severly out of date version is, yes. though I believe that enterprise
customers will receive something current.
> can i extend the xIDE?
> if yes, in which language?
C or xHarbour.
> can i use 3rd-party VCL components with xIDE / xHarbour?
There are no plans to support them at this point, but OCX controls are
supported.
> Is there any migration-guide available?
In addition to the .\doc directory, something is being put together, yes.
> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
> limitations)?
xHarbour does not contain any VO classes. Although multiple class syntax
flavours are supported, The VO syntax is not directly supported by the
compiler.
xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level, but it
may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
limitations)?
xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions - (AFAIK)
ilias
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvohpw...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> I've read some things abou xHarbour.com and i looks like a nice product
>> with many future possibilities.
>
> Answers to some of these qustions should be found in the same place.
of course.
>> Is the source of xHarbour.org identical to the source used in commercial
>> distribution of xHarbour.com?
>
> Yes.
very nice, i like this.
>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
>
> A perview version will be available in December.
what is the source of this information?
i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>> In which language is the xIDE written?
>
> xHarbour
>
>> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
> code-generators)?
>
> A severly out of date version is, yes.
where is the location?
> though I believe that enterprise customers will receive something
> current.
why do you believe this?
>> can i extend the xIDE?
>> if yes, in which language?
>
> C or xHarbour.
there's no support for C++ extensions?
>> can i use 3rd-party VCL components with xIDE / xHarbour?
>
> There are no plans to support them at this point,
This would increase the value of xIDE drastically.
> but OCX controls are supported.
ok.
>> Is there any migration-guide available?
>
> In addition to the .\doc directory,
i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
> something is being put together, yes.
ok
>> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
>> limitations)?
>
> xHarbour does not contain any VO classes.
ok
> Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax is
> not directly supported by the compiler.
i don't understand this.
can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own "class
syntax flavours"?
if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an template)?
> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level, but
> it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
does anyone tried to compile VO code?
>> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
> limitations)?
>
> xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
> (AFAIK)
ok.
does anyone know those minor exceptions?
Ron Pinkas
> >> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
> >
> > A perview version will be available in December.
>
> what is the source of this information?
Paul himself is one of the founders of xHarbour.com.
> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we are
far from perfection.
> >> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
> > code-generators)?
> >
> > A severly out of date version is, yes.
>
> where is the location?
The xHarbour sources on SourceForge CVS.
> > though I believe that enterprise customers will receive something
> > current.
>
> why do you believe this?
We are not 100% decided on this issue.
> >> can i extend the xIDE?
> >> if yes, in which language?
> >
> > C or xHarbour.
>
> there's no support for C++ extensions?
You may use C++ in extending xHarbour, [as is already demonstrated by the
hbzip contribution, which utilizes the ZipArchive library which is a C++
product] this is done by wrapping C++ calls into C functions.
> >> Is there any migration-guide available?
> >
> > In addition to the .\doc directory,
>
> i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
As I indicated above we are doing our best, yet we are far from perfection.
> > Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax is
> > not directly supported by the compiler.
>
> i don't understand this.
There was no effort made to fully support VO OOP syntax. I'm not familiar
with VO enough but I assume that the syntax is generally similar, and that
more compatibility can probably be achieved by means of a .CH file (by
anyone interested).
> can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own "class
> syntax flavours"?
Sorry I don't understand.
> if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
Doing what exactly?
> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
If I understand correctly, you may extend class syntax by means of a
#[x]command and #[x]translate rules.
> or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an template)?
Sorry I don't understand.
> > xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level, but
> > it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
>
> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
I can't say.
> >> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
> > limitations)?
> >
> > xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
> > (AFAIK)
>
> does anyone know those minor exceptions?
Possibly some aspects of OOP syntax.
Ron
ilias
wrote:
> Hello Ilas,
>
>>>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
>>>
>>> A perview version will be available in December.
>>
>> what is the source of this information?
>
> Paul himself is one of the founders of xHarbour.com.
i understand.
he may should better post as "pa...@xharbour.com".
>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>
> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we
> are far from perfection.
"far from perfection" is inacceptable.
what are the main reasons for this?
>>>> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
>>>> code-generators)?
>>>
>>> A severly out of date version is, yes.
>>
>> where is the location?
>
> The xHarbour sources on SourceForge CVS.
ok.
>>> though I believe that enterprise customers will receive something
>>> current.
>>
>> why do you believe this?
>
> We are not 100% decided on this issue.
ok.
is the decision-process publically (e.g. newsgroup) or internally?
>>>> can i extend the xIDE?
>>>> if yes, in which language?
>>>
>>> C or xHarbour.
>>
>> there's no support for C++ extensions?
>
> You may use C++ in extending xHarbour, [as is already demonstrated by the
> hbzip contribution, which utilizes the ZipArchive library which is a C++
> product] this is done by wrapping C++ calls into C functions.
i understand.
this sounds not very effective.
I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
>> >> Is there any migration-guide available?
>> >
>> > In addition to the .\doc directory,
>>
>> i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
>
> As I indicated above we are doing our best, yet we are far from
> perfection.
I got an answer ".\doc", thus i 'went' there to search, but there was
nothing about migration.
The problem here was the answer itself.
>>> Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax is
>>> not directly supported by the compiler.
>>
>> i don't understand this.
>
> There was no effort made to fully support VO OOP syntax. I'm not familiar
> with VO enough but I assume that the syntax is generally similar, and
> that more compatibility can probably be achieved by means of a .CH file
> (by anyone interested).
=> {.CH file}
>> can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own
>> "class syntax flavours"?
>
> Sorry I don't understand.
>
>> if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
>
> Doing what exactly?
That what you don't understand.
>> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
>
> If I understand correctly, you may extend class syntax by means of a
> #[x]command and #[x]translate rules.
=> {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules}
>> or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an
>> template)?
>
> Sorry I don't understand.
As I don't understand what the {.CH file} is.
If i understand correctly, the {.CH file} is what i've called a "template".
I assume {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules} are written into the {.CH
file}?
>>> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level,
>>> but it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
>>
>> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
>
> I can't say.
Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
>>>> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
>>>> limitations)?
>>>
>>> xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
>>> (AFAIK)
>>
>> does anyone know those minor exceptions?
>
> Possibly some aspects of OOP syntax.
Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
> Ron
Jamie
Troll warning here. Ilias has spent the last couple months annoying and
insulting people on the visual-objects newsgroup. Check it out. I wouldn't
give him much of your time.
Jamie
"Ron Pinkas" <R...@remove-this.xharbour.com> wrote in message
news:4Hwab.1222$iT4.7...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
pe
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:01:34 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> > news:oprvohpw...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >> I've read some things abou xHarbour.com and i looks like a nice product
> >> with many future possibilities.
> >
> > Answers to some of these qustions should be found in the same place.
>
> of course.
Cool. I only mentioned it for the purposes of educating anyone reading this
thread.
>
> >> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
> >
> > A perview version will be available in December.
>
> what is the source of this information?
>
For the purposes of this email - I am. :-)
> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
.... and this will be updated when appropriate.
> >
> >> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
> > code-generators)?
> >
> > A severly out of date version is, yes.
>
> where is the location?
If you've install xHarbour, then you'll find it in
\xHarbour\contrib\xvisual\xide.prg
>
> > though I believe that enterprise customers will receive something
> > current.
>
> why do you believe this?
There was discussion internally that that would be the case - though it's
not been finalised.
>
> >> can i extend the xIDE?
> >> if yes, in which language?
> >
> > C or xHarbour.
>
> there's no support for C++ extensions?
Not directly at this time. You can create wrappers if needed.
> >> Is there any migration-guide available?
> >
> > In addition to the .\doc directory,
>
> i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of some
sort in this directory
> >> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
> >> limitations)?
> >
> > xHarbour does not contain any VO classes.
>
> ok
>
> > Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax is
> > not directly supported by the compiler.
>
> i don't understand this.
For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours and
_certain_ aspects of other flavours including VO, though we did not
specifically persue 100% direct VO syntax - it should not be a major effort
I would think to get it working. I don't know how much effort, because I
didn't really try it myself much, and don't know any else who did.
>
> can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own "class
> syntax flavours"?
>
> if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
>
> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
>
> or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an template)?
>
As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
preprocessor.
It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour and see how it goes.
> > xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level, but
> > it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
>
> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
As above.
pe
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:oprvqien...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:42:24 GMT, Ron Pinkas
<R...@remove-this.xharbour.com>
> wrote:
>
> he may should better post as "pa...@xharbour.com".
My email address is perfectly valid as is - but thanks for the suggestion.
>
> >> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >
> > We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we
> > are far from perfection.
>
> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
>
> what are the main reasons for this?
As time progresses, things improve. If this is unacceptable to you, then
hold off for now, and jump back in when you think it's right for you.
>
> is the decision-process publically (e.g. newsgroup) or internally?
Internal.
> this sounds not very effective.
>
> I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
At the xHarbour level, yes absolutely.
>
> I got an answer ".\doc", thus i 'went' there to search, but there was
> nothing about migration.
>
> The problem here was the answer itself.
>
However, I hope I've cleared that up for you.
> >>> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level,
> >>> but it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
> >>
> >> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
> >
> > I can't say.
>
> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
It really sounds like you should just try whatever it is you're trying to
accomplish. If you have VO code that you want to know if it will work with
xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your findings.
>
> >>>> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
> >>>> limitations)?
> >>>
> >>> xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
> >>> (AFAIK)
> >>
> >> does anyone know those minor exceptions?
> >
> > Possibly some aspects of OOP syntax.
>
> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
Ditto here. If you have Xbase++ code that you want to know if it will work
with xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your findings.
So far, these question have nothing to do with Clipper and you mentioned at
the outset that it did.
What are your Clipper related questions as it regards xHarbour?
Ron Pinkas
> >> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >
> > We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we
> > are far from perfection.
>
> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
I understand. It's 100% natural for different individuals to have different
level of expectations.
> what are the main reasons for this?
I read somewhere that "Perfection is a journey, not a destination", I tend
to agree.
> > We are not 100% decided on this issue.
>
> ok.
>
> is the decision-process publically (e.g. newsgroup) or internally?
Internal.
> I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
No, you have been misinformed. xHarbour fully support OOP.
> > There was no effort made to fully support VO OOP syntax. I'm not
familiar
> > with VO enough but I assume that the syntax is generally similar, and
> > that more compatibility can probably be achieved by means of a .CH file
> > (by anyone interested).
>
> => {.CH file}
Command Header file.
> >> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you may extend class syntax by means of a
> > #[x]command and #[x]translate rules.
>
> => {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules}
Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y ) but much
more powerful.
> I assume {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules} are written into the {.CH
> file}?
Yes.
> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
On your own, by downloading and testing.
Ron
Rene Pilon
> You may use C++ in extending xHarbour, [as is already demonstrated by the
> hbzip contribution, which utilizes the ZipArchive library which is a C++
> product] this is done by wrapping C++ calls into C functions.
i understand.
this sounds not very effective.
- I think if you can have both the usage of C++ as well as the Clipper
language available in 1 product - this is
a major major feature.... The openness of such an environment and the
possibilities are endless...
My 2 cents.
Rene.
ilias
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvp96y...@news.cis.dfn.de..
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:01:34 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oprvohpw...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>>> I've read some things abou xHarbour.com and i looks like a nice
>>>> product with many future possibilities.
>>>
>>> Answers to some of these qustions should be found in the same place.
>>
>> of course.
>
> Cool. I only mentioned it for the purposes of educating anyone reading
> this thread.
This is friendly.
You don't have to justify.
>>>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
>>>
>>> A perview version will be available in December.
>>
>> what is the source of this information?
>
> For the purposes of this email - I am. :-)
Who are you?
>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>
> .... and this will be updated when appropriate.
"appropriate"
who decides about?
>>>> Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g.
>>>> code-generators)?
>>>
>>> A severly out of date version is, yes.
>>
>> where is the location?
>
> If you've install xHarbour, then you'll find it in
> \xHarbour\contrib\xvisual\xide.prg
ok
>>> though I believe that enterprise customers will receive something
>>> current.
>>
>> why do you believe this?
>
> There was discussion internally that that would be the case - though it's
> not been finalised.
ok
>>>> can i extend the xIDE?
>>>> if yes, in which language?
>>>
>>> C or xHarbour.
>>
>> there's no support for C++ extensions?
>
> Not directly at this time. You can create wrappers if needed.
=> {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
=> {xHarbour accesses C++ via wrappers}
Is there an automated wrapper-generator available?
>>>> Is there any migration-guide available?
>>>
>>> In addition to the .\doc directory,
>>
>> i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
>
> I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of
> some sort in this directory
Could you please name those documents?
-
A folder "doc\html\migration" or similar would be very helpful.
>>>> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
>>>> limitations)?
>>>
>>> xHarbour does not contain any VO classes.
>>
>> ok
>>
>>> Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax is
>>> not directly supported by the compiler.
>>
>> i don't understand this.
>
> For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours
=> {Versioned "Flavours", supporting multiple Class Syntax, including
"Classy" }
this terminology [Flavours, Classy] is foreign to me.
is there any document describing this?
-
Are "Flavours" like "Dialects" [e.g. Smalltalk]?
Did you meant "Classical [Clipper]" and not "Classy"?
> and
> _certain_ aspects of other flavours including VO, though we did not
> specifically persue 100% direct VO syntax - it should not be a major
> effort
> I would think to get it working. I don't know how much effort, because I
> didn't really try it myself much, and don't know any else who did.
ok
>> can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own
>> "class syntax flavours"?
>>
>> if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
>>
>> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
>>
>> or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an
>> template)?
>
> As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
=> {we}
> preprocessor.
> It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour and see how it goes.
Why should i try, if {we} do not know.
I assume {we} includes the xharbour architects?
Or do you simply meant: "I don't know"?
>>> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level,
>>> but it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
>>
>> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
>
> As above.
ok
ilias
> Usenet,
>
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvqien...@news.cis.dfn.de...
[...]
>> he may should better post as "pa...@xharbour.com".
>
> My email address is perfectly valid as is -
Your email address is "far from perfection".
[context: usenet, commercial softwarevendor, founder]
> but thanks for the suggestion.
You are welcome.
>>>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>>>
>>> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we
>>> are far from perfection.
>>
>> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
>>
>> what are the main reasons for this?
>
> As time progresses, things improve.
Not always.
-
This is not an answer to my question.
> If this is unacceptable to you, then hold off for now, and jump back in
> when you think it's right for you.
I'm not able to decide.
I asked for the reasons.
But i got no answer.
Will you answer?
At least: "I'm not able to answer this".
>> is the decision-process publically (e.g. newsgroup) or internally?
>
> Internal.
ok
>> this sounds not very effective.
>>
>> I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
>
> At the xHarbour level, yes absolutely.
i understand.
correction:
=> {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
>> I got an answer ".\doc", thus i 'went' there to search, but there was
>> nothing about migration.
>>
>> The problem here was the answer itself.
>
> However, I hope I've cleared that up for you.
yes, you have.
Thank you.
>>>>> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level,
>>>>> but it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
>>>>
>>>> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
>>>
>>> I can't say.
>>
>> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
>
> It really sounds like you should just try whatever it is you're trying to
> accomplish. If you have VO code that you want to know if it will work
> with xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your
> findings.
=> {Evaluation of Visual-Objects Migration Issues not available}
>>>>>> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
>>>>>> limitations)?
>>>>>
>>>>> xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
>>>>> (AFAIK)
>>>>
>>>> does anyone know those minor exceptions?
>>>
>>> Possibly some aspects of OOP syntax.
>>
>> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
>
> Ditto here. If you have Xbase++ code that you want to know if it will
> work with xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your
> findings.
=> {Evaluation of Xbase++ Migration Issues not available}
> So far, these question have nothing to do with Clipper and you mentioned
> at the outset that it did.
"nothing"
are you sure?
> What are your Clipper related questions as it regards xHarbour?
I'm already asking.
More will follow.
I hope you'll have the patience.
ilias
wrote:
> Ilas,
>
[context recreated manually]
>>>>>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
>>>>>
>>>>> A perview version will be available in December.
>>>>
>>>> what is the source of this information?
>>>>
>>>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>>>
>>> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but we
>>> are far from perfection.
>>
>> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
>
> I understand. It's 100% natural for different individuals to have
> different level of expectations.
Of course, i agree.
-
But not in the given context.
subject : long time awaited major software extension
vendor : commercial
expectation: release date, possibly with status/progress report on website
>> what are the main reasons for this?
>
> I read somewhere that "Perfection is a journey, not a destination", I
> tend to agree.
This goes to philosophy.
My above explanation is based on facts.
Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context?
>> > We are not 100% decided on this issue.
>>
>> ok.
>>
>> is the decision-process publically (e.g. newsgroup) or internally?
>
> Internal.
ok
>> I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
>
> No, you have been misinformed. xHarbour fully support OOP.
I derived a faulty conclusion.
correction:
=> {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
[wrappers necessary]
>>> There was no effort made to fully support VO OOP syntax. I'm not
>>> familiar
>>> with VO enough but I assume that the syntax is generally similar, and
>>> that more compatibility can probably be achieved by means of a .CH file
>>> (by anyone interested).
>>
>> => {.CH file}
>
> Command Header file.
Any documentation on this?
>>>> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, you may extend class syntax by means of a
>>> #[x]command and #[x]translate rules.
>>
>> => {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules}
>
> Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y ) but
> much more powerful.
Extended preprocessor?
Any documentation on this?
>> I assume {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules} are written into the {.CH
>> file}?
>
> Yes.
ok
>> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
>
> On your own, by downloading and testing.
I see.
-
xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
Expectations:
I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the syntax
modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core. Something like
"Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
Rationales:
Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
competitive producs.
This document would give any interested developer the ability to quickly
evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language constructs
needed.
Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those modifications or
suggest them to the developement-team.
Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would be
simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a long
term significantly.
-
Please let me know if you agree with my "level of expectations".
Can i expect those document / information from xHarbour?
> Ron
ilias
> Ron,
>
> Troll warning here. Ilias has spent the last couple months annoying and
> insulting people on the visual-objects newsgroup. Check it out. I
> wouldn't give him much of your time.
>
> Jamie
Please do not spread missinformation.
I have never insulted any person.
Some have 'insulted' me, but not really:
Re: uk - 2 user advantage 6.2 available free from extended systems
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=a3uofv4tp8m3uhgdap4ukju96i7a0ejoq3%404ax.com
Please avoid further off-topic postings.
The topic 'VO' is closed.
-
If any reader is interested to read some of the threads:
-
Those 2 are related to this topic:
[VO25] - Migration Paths
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=1be6mv4f6n2mgbelcqpl7nf88pb1c1lgf4%404ax.com
[VO25] - Packaged Service Libraries
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=oprvkrviabzi80sk%40news.cis.dfn.de
-
A few threads about VO and its newsgroup:
[VO26] - The Technical Regress!
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=eee6lv081ggf52b804ncr9vbmj16prn8ho%404ax.com
[GROUP] - Forged Cancel - an Illegal Act !
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=35a10d4c.0309021133.4e7e9a79%40posting.google.com
Ilias - Official VOCA/SDT statement
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bj83us%24ftsqm%241%40ID-
22984.news.uni-berlin.de
ilias
> Ilias,
>
>> You may use C++ in extending xHarbour, [as is already demonstrated by
>> the
>> hbzip contribution, which utilizes the ZipArchive library which is a C++
>> product] this is done by wrapping C++ calls into C functions.
>
> i understand.
>
> this sounds not very effective.
=> {Requirement: direct use of C++ libraries}
=> {Minimum Requirement: automated generation of C++ wrapping code}
> - I think if you can have both the usage of C++ as well as the Clipper
> language available in 1 product - this is
> a major major feature.... The openness of such an environment and the
> possibilities are endless...
You are possibly right.
But this "Major Feature" seems to be a NAG (Non Achievable Goal) whilst
viewing it in the contect of xHarbour.
I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
> My 2 cents.
>
> Rene.
pe
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:05:16 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >>>
> >>> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but
we
> >>> are far from perfection.
> >>
> >> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
> >>
> >> what are the main reasons for this?
> >
> > As time progresses, things improve.
>
> Not always.
>
> -
>
> This is not an answer to my question.
>
> > If this is unacceptable to you, then hold off for now, and jump back in
> > when you think it's right for you.
>
> I'm not able to decide.
>
> I asked for the reasons.
>
> But i got no answer.
>
> Will you answer?
>
> At least: "I'm not able to answer this".
When the time comes, and other matters are not pressing, the information
will be posted on the website. You and anyone else reading this thread now
have this information. That's progress.
> >> this sounds not very effective.
> >>
> >> I cannot use OO concepts to extend xIDE / xHarbour.
> >
> > At the xHarbour level, yes absolutely.
>
> i understand.
>
> correction:
>
> => {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
=> However, C++ code can be used.
> >>>>> xHarbour generally supports the strong typing at the compiler level,
> >>>>> but it may not be 100% up to par with how VO works.
> >>>>
> >>>> does anyone tried to compile VO code?
> >>>
> >>> I can't say.
> >>
> >> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
> >
> > It really sounds like you should just try whatever it is you're trying
to
> > accomplish. If you have VO code that you want to know if it will work
> > with xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your
> > findings.
>
> => {Evaluation of Visual-Objects Migration Issues not available}
=> There is nothing to evaluate since no one has ever asked for this since
the beginning of the Harbour project.
> >>>>>> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which
> >>>>>> limitations)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> xBase++ code in general can be compiled with few minor exceptions -
> >>>>> (AFAIK)
> >>>>
> >>>> does anyone know those minor exceptions?
> >>>
> >>> Possibly some aspects of OOP syntax.
> >>
> >> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
> >
> > Ditto here. If you have Xbase++ code that you want to know if it will
> > work with xHarbour, then simply compile with xHarbour and report your
> > findings.
>
> => {Evaluation of Xbase++ Migration Issues not available}
=> Same here.
>
> > So far, these question have nothing to do with Clipper and you mentioned
> > at the outset that it did.
>
> "nothing"
>
> are you sure?
>
> > What are your Clipper related questions as it regards xHarbour?
>
> I'm already asking.
>
> More will follow.
>
> I hope you'll have the patience.
So please. there is nothing more to say about VO or Xbase++. If you want to
try it out, then you can post specific questions to the xHarbour help forum.
pe
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:18:44 GMT, Ron Pinkas
<R...@remove-this.xharbour.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ilas,
> >
>
> [context recreated manually]
>
> >>>>>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A perview version will be available in December.
> >>>>
> >>>> what is the source of this information?
> >>>>
> >>>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >>>
> >>> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but
we
> >>> are far from perfection.
> >>
> >> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
> >
> > I understand. It's 100% natural for different individuals to have
> > different level of expectations.
>
> Of course, i agree.
>
> -
>
> But not in the given context.
>
> subject : long time awaited major software extension
> vendor : commercial
> expectation: release date, possibly with status/progress report on website
As far as I can gather from your messages you're not even using the product,
free or otherwise.
The timeframe is as stated in these replies, let's move on.
> >>> There was no effort made to fully support VO OOP syntax. I'm not
> >>> familiar
> >>> with VO enough but I assume that the syntax is generally similar, and
> >>> that more compatibility can probably be achieved by means of a .CH
file
> >>> (by anyone interested).
> >>
> >> => {.CH file}
> >
> > Command Header file.
>
> Any documentation on this?
These are no different than how Clipper impliments them. There is no
xHarbour documentation on .ch files at this time.
Tidbits on any extensions to standard (read: Clipper) behavour can be
garnered from the Changelogs
>
> >>>> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
> >>>
> >>> If I understand correctly, you may extend class syntax by means of a
> >>> #[x]command and #[x]translate rules.
> >>
> >> => {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules}
> >
> > Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y ) but
> > much more powerful.
>
> Extended preprocessor?
>
> Any documentation on this?
As Above.
>
> >> I assume {#[x]command and #[x]translate rules} are written into the
{.CH
> >> file}?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> ok
>
> >> Where can i get a more precise evaluation?
> >
> > On your own, by downloading and testing.
>
> I see.
>
> -
>
> xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
>
> Expectations:
>
> I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the syntax
> modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core. Something like
> "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
>
A getting started guide is being put together. As for "Modifying Syntax",
If you have a specific example that you can't figure out, please post it to
the xHarbour help group, and someone will likely have a solution.
> Rationales:
>
> Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
> competitive producs.
The beauty of open-source.
>
> This document would give any interested developer the ability to quickly
> evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language
constructs
> needed.
There is plenty to read in the .\doc tree. It really should inspire you to
jump in if that's your wish.
>
> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those modifications
or
> suggest them to the developement-team.
Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
>
> Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would be
> simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a long
> term significantly.
Eventually, that may be true.
Paul
ilias
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvrzmz...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:05:16 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>>>>>
>>>>> We are trying our best to provide as much information as we can, but
>>>>> we are far from perfection.
>>>>
>>>> "far from perfection" is inacceptable.
>>>>
>>>> what are the main reasons for this?
[...]
> When the time comes, and other matters are not pressing, the information
> will be posted on the website.
i extract: work overload, priorities.
> You and anyone else reading this thread now have this information.
> That's progress.
ok.
[...]
>> => {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
>
> => However, C++ code can be used.
yes, indirectly, via wrappers.
[...]
>> => {Evaluation of Visual-Objects Migration Issues not available}
>
> => There is nothing to evaluate since no one has ever asked for this
> since the beginning of the Harbour project.
now someone asked.
[...]
>> => {Evaluation of Xbase++ Migration Issues not available}
>
> => Same here.
yes.
>>> So far, these question have nothing to do with Clipper and you
>>> mentioned at the outset that it did.
>>
>> "nothing"
>>
>> are you sure?
>>
>>> What are your Clipper related questions as it regards xHarbour?
>>
>> I'm already asking.
>>
>> More will follow.
>>
>> I hope you'll have the patience.
>
> So please. there is nothing more to say about VO or Xbase++.
There is more to say.
But you have nothing more to say.
I respect this.
Thank you for your time.
> If you want to try it out, then you can post specific questions to the
> xHarbour help forum.
I don't feel comfortable in the news.xharbour.org groups.
They are not distributed to usenet.
There is no webinterface available
There is no archive for reference purposes.
are there any plans for comp.lang.clipper.xharbour ?
-
xharbour is a valid topic for comp.lang.clipper.
with the benefits of usenet distribution.
I hope the people have the gentleness to answer here.
pe
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:47:44 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>> can i extend the xIDE?
> >>>> if yes, in which language?
> >>>
> >>> C or xHarbour.
> >>
> >> there's no support for C++ extensions?
> >
> > Not directly at this time. You can create wrappers if needed.
>
> => {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
>
> => {xHarbour accesses C++ via wrappers}
>
> Is there an automated wrapper-generator available?
No.
>
> >>>> Is there any migration-guide available?
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the .\doc directory,
> >>
> >> i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
> >
> > I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of
> > some sort in this directory
>
> Could you please name those documents?
There are ~110 files in .\doc and .\doc\en (not to mention another 30+ in
.\doc\es) and the Changelogs which is sort of a history of how xHarbour grew
over time. It's not perfect, nor complete solution, but should give you an
idea of how things work.... till that getting started guide is ready. (When
it's ready, it's ready.)
>
> -
>
> A folder "doc\html\migration" or similar would be very helpful.
>
Sounds plausible.
> >>>> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
> >>>> limitations)?
> >>>
> >>> xHarbour does not contain any VO classes.
> >>
> >> ok
> >>
> >>> Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax
is
> >>> not directly supported by the compiler.
> >>
> >> i don't understand this.
> >
> > For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours
>
> => {Versioned "Flavours", supporting multiple Class Syntax, including
> "Classy" }
>
> this terminology [Flavours, Classy] is foreign to me.
>
Substitute Versions for Flavours then.
> is there any document describing this?
Not directly. You can see how some of the Class syntax is handled by the
preprocessor by viewing include\hbclass.ch
Otherwise, have a look at source\rtl\tget.prg for 1 example of Class use.
> -
>
> Are "Flavours" like "Dialects" [e.g. Smalltalk]?
>
> Did you meant "Classical [Clipper]" and not "Classy"?
No. The proper name is actually Class(y) and it was a 3rd party class
engine for Clipper.
>
> > and
> > _certain_ aspects of other flavours including VO, though we did not
> > specifically persue 100% direct VO syntax - it should not be a major
> > effort
> > I would think to get it working. I don't know how much effort, because
I
> > didn't really try it myself much, and don't know any else who did.
>
> ok
Which, (by the way), you'll also see how that was partly done in hbclass.ch
(mentioned above)
>
> >> can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own
> >> "class syntax flavours"?
Since xHarbour already supports a few forms of Class syntax, and you wish to
impliment your own while using another, then yes.
> >>
> >> if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
I can't answer that without know what you want to do. See hbclass.ch first,
then ask again.
> >>
> >> must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
As above.
> >>
> >> or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an
> >> template)?
> >
> > As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
preprocessor.
> > It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour and see how it
goes.
>
> Why should i try, if {we} do not know.
I meant there was not much effort to go too much beyond what VO support is
already there. If you don't want to try it how will you know if something
you require hasn't been implimented?
As for Templates, xHarbour does not use templates.
Ron Pinkas
> > different level of expectations.
>
> Of course, i agree.
What don't you agree with?
> Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context?
"inacceptable" is typically used in contexts where one has "superiority" and
ability to "demand". "inacceptable" then suggests "bad consequence" to the
person not being able to deliver "acceptable" results. Therefore no I don't
agree, because you are in no position to demand anything. As I said you may
have "expectations", but you are in no position to decide what is
acceptable, or not.
> => {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
>
> [wrappers necessary]
C function calls are part of the C++ language. The above view is a very
limited way of looking at this. Similarly one can say that Windows API can
not be extended with C++ callbacks, because the call back need to be a C
function. Entry (and exit) points to (and from) C++ are almost always plain
C function calls - C function calls in turn are part of the C++ language.
> > Command Header file.
>
> Any documentation on this?
Yes of course, this is a very known and documented aspect of Clipper. Which
Clipper documentation did you review and were not able to find the info in?
> > Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y ) but
> > much more powerful.
>
> Extended preprocessor?
Much extended.
> Any documentation on this?
Of course, as I said above the Clipper Pre-Processor is very well
documented.
> xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
>
> Expectations:
>
> I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the syntax
> modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core. Something like
> "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
>
> Rationales:
>
> Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
> competitive producs.
>
> This document would give any interested developer the ability to quickly
> evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language
constructs
> needed.
>
> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those modifications
or
> suggest them to the developement-team.
>
> Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would be
> simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a long
> term significantly.
>
> -
>
> Please let me know if you agree with my "level of expectations".
Yes of course, and such document exists on our web site, here:
http://www.xharbour.com/comparison_chart.php
Just look at "Syntax Extensions", and "Language Extensions".
> Can i expect those document / information from xHarbour?
Yes, and it's already available.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> > language available in 1 product - this is
> > a major major feature.... The openness of such an environment and the
> > possibilities are endless...
>
> You are possibly right.
>
> But this "Major Feature" seems to be a NAG (Non Achievable Goal) whilst
> viewing it in the contect of xHarbour.
You are being miss-informed. xHarbour supports direct mixing of C, and C++
code by means of #pragma BEGINDUMP (and HB_INLINE()). You may review
tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
> I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
Harbour & xHarbour had this feature for some 2 years, and they were NOT the
first xbase products to support infile C code. FS has had it for a while
too.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> >
> > For the purposes of this email - I am. :-)
>
> Who are you?
I really don't know you, but I suspect that it's this kind of "attitude"
that makes some people avoid answering you. What kind of question is that?
Paul doesn't need to be anyone, he's simply someone who answered your
questions. Additionally I did tell you that he is one of the founders of
xHarbour.com, what additional info do you need? Social security? Birth date?
Full legal name? Even if he wasn't involved with xHarbour at all, who cares
who is he? You should simply thank him for taking the time to answer your
questions instead of antagonize him!
> >> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >
> > .... and this will be updated when appropriate.
>
> "appropriate"
>
> who decides about?
Who decides the policy of any given company? Do you really don't know?
> => {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
Not true.
> => {xHarbour accesses C++ via wrappers}
Matter of speaking only. Wrappers are just entry points. Even PURE C++
programs must start with such non OO entry point, is it not true?
> Is there an automated wrapper-generator available?
There is nothing to automate. Values are forwarded to the C++ logic by some
documented API functions, and similarly return values are returned by means
of some documented API function calls. Can you automate the generation of
the main() ("wrapper") function of any C++ module?
> > I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of
> > some sort in this directory
>
> Could you please name those documents?
Surely you can't expect others to do all your work! How much trouble is it
to list the content of a given directory?
> A folder "doc\html\migration" or similar would be very helpful.
Yes, thanks for the input.
> > For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours
>
> => {Versioned "Flavours", supporting multiple Class Syntax, including
> "Classy" }
>
> this terminology [Flavours, Classy] is foreign to me.
>
> is there any document describing this?
The problem is that you are not familiar with terms which are very
elementary in the Clipper world. "Class(y)" aka "Classy" is a very famous
OOP engine for Clipper that established many of the OOP syntax and features,
when it comes to Clipper and derivative products.
> Are "Flavours" like "Dialects" [e.g. Smalltalk]?
Like similar yet different dialects of a language.
> Did you meant "Classical [Clipper]" and not "Classy"?
No he meant "Classy" which is a very know product [and an OOP dialect]
Clipper add-on.
> > As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
>
> => {we}
[Personal suggestion - avoid these kind of responses. Abstract "comments" as
above, are saying nothing, and are extremely irritating, to me, and probably
many others.]
> > preprocessor.
> > It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour and see how it
goes.
>
> Why should i try, if {we} do not know.
Because YOU want to know, and WE don't!
> I assume {we} includes the xharbour architects?
Yes.
> Or do you simply meant: "I don't know"?
No, WE don't know.
Ron
ilias
[...]
> As far as I can gather from your messages you're not even using the
> product, free or otherwise.
this is not relevant.
I try to evaluate a commercial product [1] .
I try to do this with lowest possible effort.
> The timeframe is as stated in these replies, let's move on.
I'm moving on.
[...]
>>>> => {.CH file}
>>>
>>> Command Header file.
>>
>> Any documentation on this?
>
> These are no different than how Clipper impliments them. There is no
> xHarbour documentation on .ch files at this time.
>
> Tidbits on any extensions to standard (read: Clipper) behavour can be
> garnered from the Changelogs
"Tidbits garnered from the Changelogs".
context : [1]
expectation : published 'garnered tidbits' whitepaper.
[...]
>> Extended preprocessor?
>>
>> Any documentation on this?
>
> As Above.
context : [1]
expectation : published "Extended Preprocessor" whitepaper.
[...]
>> xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
>>
>> Expectations:
>>
>> I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the
>> syntax
>> modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core. Something like
>> "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
>
> A getting started guide is being put together. As for "Modifying
> Syntax", If you have a specific example that you can't figure out, please
> post it to the xHarbour help group, and someone will likely have a
> solution.
I've stated above what i miss.
context : [1]
expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
>> Rationales:
>>
>> Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
>> competitive producs.
>
> The beauty of open-source.
I don't meant the open-source.
I meant the ability to modify the Syntax by any provided system.
context : [1]
>> This document would give any interested developer the ability to quickly
>> evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language
>> constructs needed.
>
> There is plenty to read in the .\doc tree. It really should inspire you
> to jump in if that's your wish.
context : [1]
>> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those modifications
>> or suggest them to the developement-team.
>
> Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
context : open-source
"so far" => likely true.
context : [1]
"so far" => false.
>> Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would be
>> simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a long
>> term significantly.
>
> Eventually, that may be true.
context : [1]
The xharbour open-source project with an commercial grade distribution
_and_ with commercial grade evaluation papers would surely reach this goal.
> Paul
[...]
You have ommitted quoting 2 of my questions.
This does not matter that much, as the questions were mainly adressed to
another person.
But you should mark the omittance.
> Paul
-
[1] xHarbour, commercial distribution pricing: $95(Standard) to $1790
(Enterprise with 1 year subscription)
http://www.xharbour.com/order_online.php
Ron Pinkas
>
> yes, indirectly, via wrappers.
No, you are miss-informed. C++ can be used just as directly as from any C++
entry point.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> expectation : published 'garnered tidbits' whitepaper.
Document .\xdiff.txt
> context : [1]
> expectation : published "Extended Preprocessor" whitepaper.
Document .\xdiff.txt
> context : [1]
> expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
> context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
Document .\xdiff.txt
> context : [1]
Document .\xdiff.txt
> context : [1]
Document .\xdiff.txt
> >> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those
modifications
> >> or suggest them to the developement-team.
> >
> > Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
>
> context : open-source
> "so far" => likely true.
?
> context : [1]
> "so far" => false.
?
> context : [1]
Document .\xdiff.txt
> [1] xHarbour, commercial distribution pricing: $95(Standard) to $1790
> (Enterprise with 1 year subscription)
> http://www.xharbour.com/order_online.php
?
Ron
pe
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:34:25 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> => {Evaluation of Visual-Objects Migration Issues not available}
> >
> > => There is nothing to evaluate since no one has ever asked for this
> > since the beginning of the Harbour project.
>
> now someone asked.
Ok you're asking. The fact that there is _some_ (maybe enough for your
needs?) VO and Xbase++ syntax support is strictly a bonus at this point. I
strongly urge you to try the Free download first and then ask specific
questions about anything you're having trouble with.
> >>> So far, these question have nothing to do with Clipper and you
> >>> mentioned at the outset that it did.
> >>
> >> "nothing"
> >>
> >> are you sure?
> >>
> >>> What are your Clipper related questions as it regards xHarbour?
> >>
> >> I'm already asking.
> >>
> >> More will follow.
> >>
> >> I hope you'll have the patience.
> >
> > So please. there is nothing more to say about VO or Xbase++.
>
> There is more to say.
>
> But you have nothing more to say.
>
> I respect this.
>
> Thank you for your time.
What I mean is that this hardly seems fair to the folks using
comp.lang.clipper
>
> > If you want to try it out, then you can post specific questions to the
> > xHarbour help forum.
>
> I don't feel comfortable in the news.xharbour.org groups.
Not sure why - everyone there is pretty friendly.
>
> They are not distributed to usenet.
How does that matter?
>
> There is no webinterface available
I can't help you on that, sorry.
>
> There is no archive for reference purposes.
I keep everything I need in Outlook Express.
>
> are there any plans for comp.lang.clipper.xharbour ?
>
Not that I've been made aware of. (likely: no)
> -
>
> xharbour is a valid topic for comp.lang.clipper.
I would think yes -as it applies to working with Clipper code. For actual
support issues, and certainly 'what if's, you would be severely limiting
your pool of developers that are familiar with xHarbour by limiting your
questions to this forum.
ilias
wrote:
>> > I understand. It's 100% natural for different individuals to have
>> > different level of expectations.
>>
>> Of course, i agree.
>> But not in the given context.
>>
>> subject : long time awaited major software extension
>> vendor : commercial
>> expectation: release date, possibly with status/progress report on web
>
> What don't you agree with?
[I've repositioned the quote you've omitted above]
I don't agree about the subjectivity of the "level of expectation" in the
above given context.
The majority of the users (customers) and potential customers would expect
that there is a "release date, possibly with status/progress report" about
an "long time awaited major software extension" (xIDE) from an commercial
vendor (xharbour.com) available on the website.
>> Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context?
>
> "inacceptable" is typically used in contexts where one has "superiority"
> and ability to "demand". "inacceptable" then suggests "bad consequence"
> to the person not being able to deliver "acceptable" results. Therefore
> no I don't agree, because you are in no position to demand anything. As I
> said you may have "expectations", but you are in no position to decide
> what is
> acceptable, or not.
nice derivation.
but a faulty one.
Of course i am in the postition to decide what is "acceptable or not".
I am a potential customer of your commercial product.
Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context, viewed from an
customers / potential customers perspective?
>> => {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
>>
>> [wrappers necessary]
>
> C function calls are part of the C++ language. The above view is a very
> limited way of looking at this. Similarly one can say that Windows API
> can not be extended with C++ callbacks, because the call back need to be
> a C function. Entry (and exit) points to (and from) C++ are almost always
> plain C function calls - C function calls in turn are part of the C++
> language.
This sounds like a justification.
Is there any example available, which demonstrated the direct usage of
C++, including inheritance, to extend xIDE / xHarbour?
expectation: Document describing C++ usage.
>>> Command Header file.
>>
>> Any documentation on this?
>
> Yes of course, this is a very known and documented aspect of Clipper.
> Which Clipper documentation did you review and were not able to find the
> info in?
The question was raised in context of xHarbour specific syntax
modifications.
>>> Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y ) but
>>> much more powerful.
>>
>> Extended preprocessor?
>
> Much extended.
Who extended the preprocessor?
>> Any documentation on this?
>
> Of course, as I said above the Clipper Pre-Processor is very well
> documented.
Clarification: Documentation about the xharbour specific extensions.
available?
>> xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
>>
>> Expectations:
>>
>> I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the
>> syntax
>> modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core. Something like
>> "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
>>
>> Rationales:
>>
>> Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
>> competitive producs.
>>
>> This document would give any interested developer the ability to quickly
>> evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language
>> constructs needed.
>>
>> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those modifications
>> or suggest them to the developement-team.
>>
>> Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would be
>> simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a long
>> term significantly.
>>
>> -
>>
>> Please let me know if you agree with my "level of expectations".
>
> Yes of course, and such document exists on our web site, here:
I'm really happy that you agree!
> http://www.xharbour.com/comparison_chart.php
>
> Just look at "Syntax Extensions", and "Language Extensions".
This is a good documentation.
For language users.
>> Can i expect those document / information from xHarbour?
>
> Yes, and it's already available.
No, it isn't.
There is not enough information for language design.
Please reread the above description, especially the last paragraph.
> Ron
ilias
wrote:
>> > - I think if you can have both the usage of C++ as well as the Clipper
>> > language available in 1 product - this is
>> > a major major feature.... The openness of such an environment and the
>> > possibilities are endless...
>>
>> You are possibly right.
>>
>> But this "Major Feature" seems to be a NAG (Non Achievable Goal) whilst
>> viewing it in the contect of xHarbour.
>
> You are being miss-informed. xHarbour supports direct mixing of C, and
> C++ code by means of #pragma BEGINDUMP (and HB_INLINE()).
The poster meant a direct combination of Clipper / C++ in one product, with
all the freedom of creating and combining both languages (linking,
debugging, direct crossaccess to objects etc.)
This is definetely not something that xHarbour provides or that xHarbour
could provide in a reasonably timeframe, as it would come close to an
redesign.
Wouldn't it?
> You may review tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
I have searched the complete demo installation of xHB.
There is not "inline_c.prg".
>> I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
>
> Harbour & xHarbour had this feature for some 2 years, and they were NOT
> the first xbase products to support infile C code.
I was asking about C++
> FS has had it for a while too.
What is "FS" ?
> Ron
ilias
wrote:
>>>>>> Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
>>>>> A perview version will be available in December.
>>>> what is the source of this information?
>>>
>>> For the purposes of this email - I am. :-)
>>
>> Who are you?
>
> I really don't know you, but I suspect that it's this kind of "attitude"
> that makes some people avoid answering you.
I see.
> What kind of question is that?
A simple question.
I asked for the "source of this information"?
He answered "...I am".
I asked "Who are you"?
Mainly to evaluate the validity of his answer.
> Paul doesn't need to be anyone, he's simply someone who answered your
> questions. Additionally I did tell you that he is one of the founders of
> xHarbour.com, what additional info do you need? Social security? Birth
> date? Full legal name? Even if he wasn't involved with xHarbour at all,
> who cares who is he? You should simply thank him for taking the time to
> answer your questions instead of antagonize him!
You overreact.
Please stay calmy.
>> >> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>> >
>> > .... and this will be updated when appropriate.
>>
>> "appropriate"
>>
>> who decides about?
>
> Who decides the policy of any given company? Do you really don't know?
no, i don't know, as i don't know the companies structure.
i extract: you decide.
http://www.xharbour.com/board_of_directors.php
>> => {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
>
> Not true.
please provide an example.
>> => {xHarbour accesses C++ via wrappers}
>
> Matter of speaking only. Wrappers are just entry points. Even PURE C++
> programs must start with such non OO entry point, is it not true?
i understand your comparision.
>> Is there an automated wrapper-generator available?
>
> There is nothing to automate. Values are forwarded to the C++ logic by
> some documented API functions, and similarly return values are returned
> by means of some documented API function calls. Can you automate the
> generation of the main() ("wrapper") function of any C++ module?
>
>>> I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of
>>> some sort in this directory
>>
>> Could you please name those documents?
>
> Surely you can't expect others to do all your work! How much trouble is
> it to list the content of a given directory?
You become irrational.
I meant the "docs of some sort" [not strictly named migration, but similar
content]
>> A folder "doc\html\migration" or similar would be very helpful.
>
> Yes, thanks for the input.
ok
>>> For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours
>>
>> => {Versioned "Flavours", supporting multiple Class Syntax, including
>> "Classy" }
>>
>> this terminology [Flavours, Classy] is foreign to me.
>>
>> is there any document describing this?
>
> The problem is that you are not familiar with terms which are very
> elementary in the Clipper world. "Class(y)" aka "Classy" is a very famous
> OOP engine for Clipper that established many of the OOP syntax and
> features, when it comes to Clipper and derivative products.
I understand.
>> Are "Flavours" like "Dialects" [e.g. Smalltalk]?
>
> Like similar yet different dialects of a language.
ok
>> Did you meant "Classical [Clipper]" and not "Classy"?
>
> No he meant "Classy" which is a very know product [and an OOP dialect]
> Clipper add-on.
this is clear due to your above statements.
>>> As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
>>
>> => {we}
>
> [Personal suggestion - avoid these kind of responses. Abstract "comments"
> as above, are saying nothing, and are extremely irritating, to me, and
> probably many others.]
There is an simply logic behind this.
Very simply to detect.
>>> preprocessor.
>>> It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour and see how it
>>> goes.
>>
>> Why should i try, if {we} do not know.
>
> Because YOU want to know, and WE don't!
I understand.
>> I assume {we} includes the xharbour architects?
>
> Yes.
I'm surprised.
The xharbour architects do not know about the syntax-modifications-
abilities of their own product.
>> Or do you simply meant: "I don't know"?
>
> No, WE don't know.
yes, i've understood this.
> Ron
pe
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:59:00 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > As far as I can gather from your messages you're not even using the
> > product, free or otherwise.
>
> this is not relevant.
>
> I try to evaluate a commercial product [1] .
You can't evaluate it if you won't try it. The download is free!
>
> I try to do this with lowest possible effort.
We've been at this for 2 days. I assure you, it would have been far easier
for you to just download it and try what you need.
[...]
> >
> > Tidbits on any extensions to standard (read: Clipper) behavour can be
> > garnered from the Changelogs
and yes, the .\xdiff.txt which I forgot about.
>
> "Tidbits garnered from the Changelogs".
>
> context : [1]
> expectation : published 'garnered tidbits' whitepaper.
The Changelogs are about 2+ megs worth of 'history' They're in the
\xHarbour directory. Is that 'published' enough for you?
>
> [...]
> >> Extended preprocessor?
> >>
> >> Any documentation on this?
> >
> > As Above.
>
> context : [1]
> expectation : published "Extended Preprocessor" whitepaper.
.\xdiff.txt
>
> [...]
> >> xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
> >>
> >> Expectations:
> >>
> >> I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the
> >> syntax
> >> modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core.
> >> Something like
> >> "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
xHarbour (The open source compiler) is a project that saw contributions from
a number of developers: Each modifying the parts of xHarbour as he saw fit
within the general guidlines of this being a multi-platform, Clipper
compatible compiler. Any documentation or examples were written along the
way, including the tools to allow you to format that documentation into
something you might be more comfortable in using like:
/txt Create an ASCII file instead of a Norton Guide
/con Create an ASCII file without formfeeds
/hpc Helpc source file
/ngi Adds the -NG switch to EHC command for compile for
DOS/Windows/Linux.
/rtf Winhelp source code for Windows
/os2 OS/2 help source code For OS/2
/htm Generate HTML output
/chm Generate HTML source files for Windows .CHM Help files
/pdf Generate an Adobe Portable Document (.PDF)
/trf Gerenate Linux TROFF code
/doc Create continuous ASCII file w/o author information
Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour is not something that every developer
involved in the project likely had the ability or even desire to do.
However, anyone that could contribute something in this regard, did either
directly, or by requesting the additions. If you have a specific
requirement, you will never know if you have the ability or desire to be
Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour if you don't at least start with the
basics, and maybe familiarise yourself with the abilities of the product
before you can decide on any perceived shortcomings.
If you wish to be having your Clipper code Migrating to xHarbour, that is 1
issue, but other dialects (VO, Xbase++) could be more work. Since no one
has done this yet, the process is not documented at this time.
> >
> > A getting started guide is being put together. As for "Modifying
> > Syntax", If you have a specific example that you can't figure out,
please
> > post it to the xHarbour help group, and someone will likely have a
> > solution.
>
> I've stated above what i miss.
>
> context : [1]
> expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
> context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
No one can tell you specifically what to change without knowing what you're
trying to accomplish.
>
> >> Rationales:
> >>
> >> Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
> >> competitive producs.
> >
> > The beauty of open-source.
>
> I don't meant the open-source.
>
> I meant the ability to modify the Syntax by any provided system.
>
> context : [1]
Are you saying that (and I paraphrase) 'xHarbour is better than the
competition because you can modify the language syntax' ?
>
> >> This document would give any interested developer the ability to
quickly
> >> evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the language
> >> constructs needed.
Needed for what? You don't know what's missing yet!
The goal of [1] is not to be a lesson in compiler architecture.
I assure you that if you just _TRY_ whatever it is you are gearing up for,
someone _will_ be able to help you out should you hit a snag.
You just have to make your request where the developers will see it.
news.xharbour.org.
> >
> > There is plenty to read in the .\doc tree. It really should inspire you
> > to jump in if that's your wish.
>
> context : [1]
>
Sorry?
> >> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those
modifications
> >> or suggest them to the developement-team.
> >
> > Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
>
> context : open-source
> "so far" => likely true.
very.
>
> context : [1]
> "so far" => false.
Not a clue what you mean here.
>
> >> Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would
be
> >> simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a
long
> >> term significantly.
> >
> > Eventually, that may be true.
>
> context : [1]
>
> The xharbour open-source project with an commercial grade distribution
> _and_ with commercial grade evaluation papers would surely reach this
goal.
Why not download it and find out how it works for you?
>
> > Paul
> [...]
>
> You have ommitted quoting 2 of my questions.
>
> This does not matter that much, as the questions were mainly adressed to
> another person.
>
> But you should mark the omittance.
I guess I missed that.
ilias
wrote:
>> > => However, C++ code can be used.
ok.
I would be happy if we can discuss C++ support of xHarbour in an seperate
thread.
I will open up one shortly.
> Ron
Ron Pinkas
> >> viewing it in the contect of xHarbour.
> >
> > You are being miss-informed. xHarbour supports direct mixing of C, and
> > C++ code by means of #pragma BEGINDUMP (and HB_INLINE()).
>
> The poster meant a direct combination of Clipper / C++ in one product,
with
> all the freedom of creating and combining both languages (linking,
> debugging, direct crossaccess to objects etc.)
The poster is aware of those capabilites of xHarbour.
> This is definetely not something that xHarbour provides or that xHarbour
> could provide in a reasonably timeframe, as it would come close to an
> redesign.
How can you tell me, that xHarbour can not provide that, when I'm the very
person that developed that capability?
> Wouldn't it?
No it wouldn't! It's already avilable.
> > You may review tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
>
> I have searched the complete demo installation of xHB.
>
> There is not "inline_c.prg".
The commercial distribution of xHarbour from xHarbour.com does not provide
all the samples avilable for xHarbour. It provided only select demos to
demonstrate xHarbour extensions over similiar products. You may find a
demonstration of infile C code, in samples\c_struc.prg.
> >> I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
> >
> > Harbour & xHarbour had this feature for some 2 years, and they were NOT
> > the first xbase products to support infile C code.
>
> I was asking about C++
C++ is supported the exact same way as C, in xHarbour.
> > FS has had it for a while too.
>
> What is "FS" ?
FlagShip (another very popular Clipper compabtible compiler).
Ron
ilias
wrote:
>> context : [1]
>> expectation : published 'garnered tidbits' whitepaper.
[...]
>> expectation : published "Extended Preprocessor" whitepaper.
[...]
>> expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
>> context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
>
> Document .\xdiff.txt
-
>>>> Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those
>>>> modifications or suggest them to the developement-team.
>>>
>>> Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
>>
>> context : open-source
>> "so far" => likely true.
>
> ?
In context "open-source" the expression "so far" in the quoted sentence
evaluates to [becomes] "likely true".
>> context : [1]
>> "so far" => false.
>
> ?
In context [1], the expression "so far" in the quoted sentence evaluates to
[becomes] "false".
>> context : [1]
>
> Document .\xdiff.txt
>
>> [1] xHarbour, commercial distribution pricing: $95(Standard) to $1790
>> (Enterprise with 1 year subscription)
>> http://www.xharbour.com/order_online.php
>
> ?
The above describes the xharbour.com commercial distribution.
The pricing has "commercial grade".
But your pre-sales support and documentation, not.
(as far as i've seen yet).
-
What does your reference to ".\xdiff.txt" mean?
In the price of $1790 you become ".\xdiff.txt" for free?
And ".\xdiff.txt" contains _all_ the documentation?
-
Suggestion: Increase the quality of your pre-sales documentation.
> Ron
Ron Pinkas
> that there is a "release date, possibly with status/progress report" about
> an "long time awaited major software extension" (xIDE) from an commercial
> vendor (xharbour.com) available on the website.
I'm sorry if the site doesn't meet with your expectations.
> > "inacceptable" is typically used in contexts where one has "superiority"
> > and ability to "demand". "inacceptable" then suggests "bad consequence"
> > to the person not being able to deliver "acceptable" results. Therefore
> > no I don't agree, because you are in no position to demand anything. As
I
> > said you may have "expectations", but you are in no position to decide
> > what is
> > acceptable, or not.
>
> nice derivation.
?
> but a faulty one.
Please don't think you are in a position to grade my logic - you'd have to
EARN such position!
> Of course i am in the postition to decide what is "acceptable or not".
Not in a public context.
> I am a potential customer of your commercial product.
>
> Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context, viewed from an
> customers / potential customers perspective?
No, "inacceptable" does not exist in that context - valid alternative is
"unwillingness to buy".
> >> => {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
> >>
> >> [wrappers necessary]
> >
> > C function calls are part of the C++ language. The above view is a very
> > limited way of looking at this. Similarly one can say that Windows API
> > can not be extended with C++ callbacks, because the call back need to be
> > a C function. Entry (and exit) points to (and from) C++ are almost
always
> > plain C function calls - C function calls in turn are part of the C++
> > language.
>
> This sounds like a justification.
Try "explanation", instead.
> Is there any example available, which demonstrated the direct usage of
> C++, including inheritance, to extend xIDE / xHarbour?
>
> expectation: Document describing C++ usage.
Yes, look at contrib\hbzlib [which I already mentioned before.] it provides
interface to the famous ZipArchive C++ library.
> >>> Command Header file.
> >>
> >> Any documentation on this?
> >
> > Yes of course, this is a very known and documented aspect of Clipper.
> > Which Clipper documentation did you review and were not able to find the
> > info in?
>
> The question was raised in context of xHarbour specific syntax
> modifications.
No, the context was extending the syntax of xHarbour [as any other Clipper
compabitble language] using the #[x]command and [x]translate Clipper
compabtible Pre-Processor directives. If you care enough to know, you'll
learn very quickly how to implement almost any syntax using these powerfull
capabilities.
> >>> Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y )
but
> >>> much more powerful.
> >>
> >> Extended preprocessor?
> >
> > Much extended.
>
> Who extended the preprocessor?
The Clipper Pre-Processor author. xHarbour in-turn also adds some
extensions, documented in .\xdiff.txt
> >> Any documentation on this?
> >
> > Of course, as I said above the Clipper Pre-Processor is very well
> > documented.
>
> Clarification: Documentation about the xharbour specific extensions.
>
> available?
Yes, [again] in .\xdiff.txt. But one must first learn to walk ... - the VO
syntax extensions that you asked about could be implemented with the Clipper
directives we pointed out. These directived are very well documented [for
those that care to READ them.]
> > Just look at "Syntax Extensions", and "Language Extensions".
>
> This is a good documentation.
>
> For language users.
>
> >> Can i expect those document / information from xHarbour?
> >
> > Yes, and it's already available.
>
> No, it isn't.
Why do you ask, if you don't respect the answers you get?
> There is not enough information for language design.
>
> Please reread the above description, especially the last paragraph.
It's time for YOU to do some reading, you are the one with the questions,
right?
Between the above page, and the .\xdiff.txt document, all xHarbour
lanugauage extensions are covered. Add to this the samples folder from the
xHarbour.com distribution, and you should have anyting you could hope for,
and then some. Now please invest more of your time in reading, and testing,
instead of posting redundant messages.
Thanks for your input,
Ron
ilias
wrote:
>>>> But this "Major Feature" seems to be a NAG (Non Achievable Goal)
>>>> whilst viewing it in the contect of xHarbour.
>>>
>>> You are being miss-informed. xHarbour supports direct mixing of C, and
>>> C++ code by means of #pragma BEGINDUMP (and HB_INLINE()).
>>
>> The poster meant a direct combination of Clipper / C++ in one product,
>> with all the freedom of creating and combining both languages (linking,
>> debugging, direct crossaccess to objects etc.)
>
> The poster is aware of those capabilites of xHarbour.
You mean the capabilities that he stated.
Not that ones i've stated hypthetically.
ok.
>> This is definetely not something that xHarbour provides or that xHarbour
>> could provide in a reasonably timeframe, as it would come close to an
>> redesign.
>
> How can you tell me, that xHarbour can not provide that, when I'm the
> very person that developed that capability?
xharbour has the capabilities that i've described above hypothetically?
>> Wouldn't it?
>
> No it wouldn't! It's already avilable.
Where is the whitepapar about that?
Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
>>> You may review tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
>>
>> I have searched the complete demo installation of xHB.
>>
>> There is not "inline_c.prg".
>
> The commercial distribution of xHarbour from xHarbour.com does not
> provide all the samples avilable for xHarbour.
why not? at least as seperate download.
wait...
You mean you have implemented full C++ support in xHarbour...
But you don't provide a demo for this functionality?
This sounds not very rational.
> It provided only select demos to
> demonstrate xHarbour extensions over similiar products. You may find a
> demonstration of infile C code, in samples\c_struc.prg.
I don't see any C++ in this demo.
>>>> I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
>>>
>>> Harbour & xHarbour had this feature for some 2 years, and they were
>>> NOTthe first xbase products to support infile C code.
>>
>> I was asking about C++
>
> C++ is supported the exact same way as C, in xHarbour.
Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
>>> FS has had it for a while too.
>>
>> What is "FS" ?
>
> FlagShip (another very popular Clipper compabtible compiler).
Unix, when i remember right.
...
May it's time for "WarBird"...
> Ron
Ron Pinkas
> >> context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
> >
> > Document .\xdiff.txt
>
> -
!
> In context [1], the expression "so far" in the quoted sentence evaluates
to
> [becomes] "false".
Please don't refer to *your* logic as if it was some accepted objective
reference banchmark, it's not!
> The above describes the xharbour.com commercial distribution.
>
> The pricing has "commercial grade".
Do you know of ANY price, that is not commecial grade?
[BTW, I calculated that with 10 year subscription the price is actually,
$6245.]
> But your pre-sales support and documentation, not.
Yes, I know.
> (as far as i've seen yet).
Again, sorry, we are not able to meet with your excpectations.
> What does your reference to ".\xdiff.txt" mean?
Look at the ROOT directory of your xHarbour installation for a file names
"xdiff.txt".
> In the price of $1790 you become ".\xdiff.txt" for free?
It's free even when you don't buy any thing - kust download xHarbour from
http://www.xHarbour.org
[BTW there is no $1790 price, just as there's no $6245! Personal version is
$95, Proffesional is $295 and Enterprise is $1295.]
> And ".\xdiff.txt" contains _all_ the documentation?
No, it conatins the documentation of _all_ language extensions.
> Suggestion: Increase the quality of your pre-sales documentation.
I'll try my best.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
>
> A simple question.
What could be the answer to such "simple question"? ID? SSN? Birth Date?
Address? What?
> I asked for the "source of this information"?
>
> He answered "...I am".
>
> I asked "Who are you"?
>
> Mainly to evaluate the validity of his answer.
How would you evaluate the validity? Hire a PI to verify the information?
> > Paul doesn't need to be anyone, he's simply someone who answered your
> > questions. Additionally I did tell you that he is one of the founders of
> > xHarbour.com, what additional info do you need? Social security? Birth
> > date? Full legal name? Even if he wasn't involved with xHarbour at all,
> > who cares who is he? You should simply thank him for taking the time to
> > answer your questions instead of antagonize him!
>
> You overreact.
You are in no position to decide that for me.
> Please stay calmy.
I am.
> >> >> i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
> >> >
> >> > .... and this will be updated when appropriate.
> >>
> >> "appropriate"
> >>
> >> who decides about?
> >
> > Who decides the policy of any given company? Do you really don't know?
>
> no, i don't know, as i don't know the companies structure.
So you expected the *names* of decision makers? Or what?
> >> => {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
> >
> > Not true.
>
> please provide an example.
Sorry, I don't have the time, or the interest.
> >> Could you please name those documents?
> >
> > Surely you can't expect others to do all your work! How much trouble is
> > it to list the content of a given directory?
>
> You become irrational.
Please don't abuse my politness. It's not your place to grade my rational!
> > [Personal suggestion - avoid these kind of responses. Abstract
"comments"
> > as above, are saying nothing, and are extremely irritating, to me, and
> > probably many others.]
>
> There is an simply logic behind this.
Yes, It's clear that you'd think that, or you wouldn't have done it. I
simply point out the impression of others.
> I'm surprised.
>
> The xharbour architects do not know about the syntax-modifications-
> abilities of their own product.
No the surprise is that you don't understand that the IMPLEMENTAION of such
capabailities in order to simulate VO syntax is not of intrest to those
devlopers. This has nothing to do with knowledge - you simply distorted the
context.
> >> Or do you simply meant: "I don't know"?
> >
> > No, WE don't know.
>
> yes, i've understood this.
I suspect that you still don't understand.
What we do not know is, how much of VO OOP syntax is supported, and how much
if any is not supported. The reason we don't know, is we did not try. The
reason we did not try, is we obviouslty didn't have such need. Some
contributors did contribute some VO syntax, and it's up to you to see how
much is and isn't supported.
BTW, how much code do you have to port from VO, or xBase++ if any? Could you
describe the projects please?
Ron
Rob
Ilias, as has been pointed out by other posts, will have you tearing your
hair out with rude, obtuse, arrogant, ill-informed and incoherent responses.
He will ask questions like a spoilt kid and be abusive if he doesn't get the
answers he wants to hear. He has caused this sort of range war on numerous
other NGs.
It is not for me to suggest or recommend any courses of action, but please
be aware of his background....
--
Rob Grattan
R&D Software Pty. Ltd.
Ron Pinkas
>
> You mean the capabilities that he stated.
What else could I have meant?
> Not that ones i've stated hypthetically.
There is no difference.
> >> This is definetely not something that xHarbour provides or that
xHarbour
> >> could provide in a reasonably timeframe, as it would come close to an
> >> redesign.
> >
> > How can you tell me, that xHarbour can not provide that, when I'm the
> > very person that developed that capability?
>
> xharbour has the capabilities that i've described above hypothetically?
Yes.
> >> Wouldn't it?
> >
> > No it wouldn't! It's already avilable.
>
> Where is the whitepapar about that?
\doc\inline_c.txt
> Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
Here:
//----------------------------------//
PROCEDURE Main()
cppDemo()
RETURN
#pragma BEGINDUMP
HB_FUNC( CPPDEMO )
{
// Any C++ code follows.
// ...
}
// Any more C++ code follows.
// ...
#pragma ENDDUMP
//----------------------------------//
Or if you want a more OOP sample:
//----------------------------------//
PROCEDURE Main()
LOCAL oCppObject := cppDemo()
ErrorBlock( {|e| cppDispatch( oCppObject, e) } )
oCpp:SomeMethod()
// ...
RETURN
PROCEDURE cppDispatch( Self, e )
LOCAL cMsg := e:Operation
&( "cpp_" + cMsg )( Self )
RETURN
#pragma BEGINDUMP
HB_FUNC( CPPDEMO )
{
// Some object instanciation.
SomeClass This = ...;
hb_retnl( (long) This );
}
HB_FUNC( CPP_SOMEMETHOD )
{
SomeClass This = (SomeClass) hb_parnl( 1 );
This:SomeMethod();
//...
}
#pragma ENDDUMP
//----------------------------------//
You may see the same technique used in source\rtl\win32ole.prg (and tested
with tests\testole.prg).
> >>> You may review tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
> >>
> >> I have searched the complete demo installation of xHB.
> >>
> >> There is not "inline_c.prg".
> >
> > The commercial distribution of xHarbour from xHarbour.com does not
> > provide all the samples avilable for xHarbour.
>
> why not? at least as seperate download.
Because I don't like redundancy.
> wait...
>
> You mean you have implemented full C++ support in xHarbour...
Yes.
> But you don't provide a demo for this functionality?
Yes we do. Any one that doesn't understand that the #pragma BEGINDUMP
provides direct support of ANYTHING that's supported by the backend
compiler, and that almost all common compilers used as backend support C++,
simply isn't qualified to use the feature.
> This sounds not very rational.
To those not understanding the architecture in place.
> > It provided only select demos to
> > demonstrate xHarbour extensions over similiar products. You may find a
> > demonstration of infile C code, in samples\c_struc.prg.
>
> I don't see any C++ in this demo.
Because you don't understand the genral nature of the feature.
> >>>> I am wondering why none has gone this developement path years before.
> >>>
> >>> Harbour & xHarbour had this feature for some 2 years, and they were
> >>> NOTthe first xbase products to support infile C code.
> >>
> >> I was asking about C++
> >
> > C++ is supported the exact same way as C, in xHarbour.
>
> Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
I see you are very fond of the very thing I despise.
> >>> FS has had it for a while too.
> >>
> >> What is "FS" ?
> >
> > FlagShip (another very popular Clipper compabtible compiler).
>
> Unix, when i remember right.
>
> ...
>
> May it's time for "WarBird"...
Ha?
Ron
Ron Pinkas
Thanks for the info. I was already "warned" just after Ilias' FIRST post
(even before Paul responded). Just after my first response I got at least 2
additional [almost identical] warnings. I've decided to respond anyway and
be as polite as possible, because I'm very curious to learn where he wants
to take this.
Please bare with me for little longer. I'll continue with this practice just
as long as Ilias has any reasonable question that I may help with.
Ron
Gary Stark
Ross McKenzie wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:35:46 +0300, ilias <use...@abeon.com> wrote:
>
> >I've read some things abou xHarbour.com and i looks like a nice product
> >with many future possibilities.
> >
> >I have a few questions regarding xHarbour:
> >
> >-
> >
> >Is the source of xHarbour.org identical to the source used in commercial
> >distribution of xHarbour.com?
> >
> >Is there an release-date for the xIDE?
> >
> >In which language is the xIDE written?
> >
> >Is source of the xIDE available (at least partially, e.g. code-generators)?
> >
> >can i extend the xIDE?
> >
> >if yes, in which language?
> >
> >can i use 3rd-party VCL components with xIDE / xHarbour?
> >
> >Is there any migration-guide available?
> >
> >Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
> >limitations)?
> >
> >Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with xHarbour (which limitations)?
> >
> >-
> >
> >I hope this is not to much at once.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for your time!
>
> Hello Ilias,
>
> I suggest that you will receive a better set of answers if you ask
> your questions at the newsgroup established for xHarbour.
And everyone else here.
Be aware that Ilias is a troll of the lowest order. Over the last few months he
has been terrorising (literally) the VO newgroup with his meandering, trolling,
worthless posts.
We have even had one user go and cancel his posts for a time (my god it was
pleasant for those few days) and he has managed, at some point or another, to
piss off most people in the VO ng with his unreasonable and illogical - hell,
often unintelligble - rantings.
While I'm not dirctly suggesting that you killfile him immediately (but this
would be a good idea) I would strongly urge the use of extreme caution in your
dealings with him. He has been proven to be a timewaster and a right royal pita.
His postings are probably best left as light entertainment rather than being
treated as any serious attempt to elicit any real programming content.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Gary Stark
> Thanks for the info. I was already "warned" just after Ilias' FIRST post
> (even before Paul responded). Just after my first response I got at least 2
> additional [almost identical] warnings. I've decided to respond anyway and
> be as polite as possible, because I'm very curious to learn where he wants
> to take this.
>
And that is fair enough too; you need to be free to make up your own mind in
this sort of thing, and for that you certainly need to ascribe a certain level
of trust.
> Please bare with me for little longer. I'll continue with this practice just
Bare with you? You're hardly my type, and besides, I hardly know you! <g>
But yes, it's a good idea to persevere, and persist. It's only by observing good
netiquette that he may learn, and hopefully everyone will benefit from those
times that he does have something of value to offer.
Gary Stark
> > > If you want to try it out, then you can post specific questions to the
> > > xHarbour help forum.
> >
> > I don't feel comfortable in the news.xharbour.org groups.
>
> Not sure why - everyone there is pretty friendly.
It's private forum, isn't it ? He doesn't want to get kicked out when he starts
to piss everybody, I suspect.
Gary Stark
ilias wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:02:07 GMT, Jamie <bubam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > Troll warning here. Ilias has spent the last couple months annoying and
> > insulting people on the visual-objects newsgroup. Check it out. I
> > wouldn't give him much of your time.
> >
> > Jamie
>
> Please do not spread missinformation.
>
> I have never insulted any person.
You are not just a troll, but you are a lying troll.
You have insulted many, and frequently. Your refusal to meet with Geoff, after he offerred to
meet with you (and was travelling thousands of miles and passing right through your town) was
an intolerable insult of the highest (lowest) order. Your refusal to get off your backside to
even meet with someone like within a context of professional courtesy is one of the greatest
example of internet rudeness that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter, and that's in
well over 10 years of internet access, and over 20 years of online activity.
You, Ilias, appear to be little more than an internet terrorist with no scruples, little
programming knowledge, and no respect or knowledge of the family of xBase languages.
> Some have 'insulted' me, but not really:
The only insults you have recieved have been in the form of reactions to your arrogance and
ignorance.
> Please avoid further off-topic postings.
And you are not the off-topic police in this - or any other - newsgroup.
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvsddd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:34:25 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>=> {Evaluation of Visual-Objects Migration Issues not available}
>>>
>>>=> There is nothing to evaluate since no one has ever asked for this
>>>since the beginning of the Harbour project.
>>
>>now someone asked.
>
> Ok you're asking. The fact that there is _some_ (maybe enough for your
> needs?) VO and Xbase++ syntax support is strictly a bonus at this point. I
ok
> strongly urge you to try the Free download first and then ask specific
> questions about anything you're having trouble with.
ok
[...]
>>>So please. there is nothing more to say about VO or Xbase++.
>>
>>There is more to say.
>>But you have nothing more to say.
>>I respect this.
>>Thank you for your time.
>
> What I mean is that this hardly seems fair to the folks using
> comp.lang.clipper
Readers can ignore this thread by placing a filter on "[XHARBOUR]".
>>>If you want to try it out, then you can post specific questions to the
>>>xHarbour help forum.
>>
>>I don't feel comfortable in the news.xharbour.org groups.
>
> Not sure why - everyone there is pretty friendly.
friendlyness is not the problem.
reasons below.
>>They are not distributed to usenet.
>
> How does that matter?
availability.
further reasons below.
>>There is no webinterface available
>
> I can't help you on that, sorry.
No problem.
>>There is no archive for reference purposes.
>
> I keep everything I need in Outlook Express.
Personal preference.
I prefere the public Google Archive.
Like others do.
>>are there any plans for comp.lang.clipper.xharbour ?
>>
> Not that I've been made aware of. (likely: no)
ok
>>xharbour is a valid topic for comp.lang.clipper.
>
> I would think yes -as it applies to working with Clipper code. For actual
> support issues, and certainly 'what if's, you would be severely limiting
> your pool of developers that are familiar with xHarbour by limiting your
> questions to this forum.
I understand this limitation.
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>>>expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
>>>>context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
>>>
>>>Document .\xdiff.txt
>>
>>-
>
> !
[2]
>> In context [1], the expression "so far" in the quoted sentence evaluates
>> to [becomes] "false".
>
> Please don't refer to *your* logic as if it was some accepted objective
> reference banchmark, it's not!
My expression was anyway false.
-
xHarbour is not "very far", viewing it as an commercial software.
[The above expression is based on expectations, which raised during
reading the xharbour.com commercial distribution website.]
>>The above describes the xharbour.com commercial distribution.
>>
>>The pricing has "commercial grade".
>
> Do you know of ANY price, that is not commecial grade?
Are you really unable to imagine what i meant?
> [BTW, I calculated that with 10 year subscription the price is actually,
> $6245.]
I don't verify this, as it is unlikely that a customer would order this way.
>>But your pre-sales support and documentation, not.
>
> Yes, I know.
Thank you for accepting this.
>>(as far as i've seen yet).
>
> Again, sorry, we are not able to meet with your excpectations.
>>What does your reference to ".\xdiff.txt" mean?
>
> Look at the ROOT directory of your xHarbour installation for a file names
> "xdiff.txt".
There is no "xdiff.txt", nowhere in folder "xHB".
[the second file missing, after inline_c.prg]
>>In the price of $1790 you become ".\xdiff.txt" for free?
>
> It's free even when you don't buy any thing - kust download xHarbour from
> http://www.xHarbour.org
I've downloaded the commercial distribution demo, which is my main interest.
The open-source is not relevant to me (for now).
Please [You, and your team] decoulple with precision.
> [BTW there is no $1790 price, just as there's no $6245! Personal version is
> $95, Proffesional is $295 and Enterprise is $1295.]
Enterprise version, including one year subsciption: $1790.
[1] xHarbour, commercial distribution pricing: $95(Standard) to $1790
(Enterprise with 1 year subscription)
http://www.xharbour.com/order_online.php
>>And ".\xdiff.txt" contains _all_ the documentation?
>
> No, it conatins the documentation of _all_ language extensions.
[2] i did not ask for this.
>>Suggestion: Increase the quality of your pre-sales documentation.
>
> I'll try my best.
This is possibly not enouth.
Ever thought about that?
> Ron
[note to reader: i've not recreated the missing quotes. Simply went back
in the thread to view the ommited text.]
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvsf2b...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:59:00 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>As far as I can gather from your messages you're not even using the
>>>product, free or otherwise.
>>
>>this is not relevant.
>>
>>I try to evaluate a commercial product [1] .
>
> You can't evaluate it if you won't try it.
Of course i can.
> The download is free!
I've downloaded the commercial demo.
http://www.xharbour.com/demo_registration.php
[positive: no registration necessary]
>>I try to do this with lowest possible effort.
>
> We've been at this for 2 days. I assure you, it would have been far easier
> for you to just download it and try what you need.
I assure you not.
> [...]
>>>Tidbits on any extensions to standard (read: Clipper) behavour can be
>>>garnered from the Changelogs
>
> and yes, the .\xdiff.txt which I forgot about.
which is not included in the commercial demo.
[i am discussing the commercial xharbour]
>>"Tidbits garnered from the Changelogs".
>>
>>context : [1]
>>expectation : published 'garnered tidbits' whitepaper.
>
> The Changelogs are about 2+ megs worth of 'history' They're in the
> \xHarbour directory. Is that 'published' enough for you?
That is to much, if i had to "garnered" the relevant entries myself.
But this seems to be solved with the file "xdiff.txt" that you forgot to
mention.
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Extended preprocessor?
>>>>
>>>>Any documentation on this?
>>>
>>>As Above.
>>
>>context : [1]
>>expectation : published "Extended Preprocessor" whitepaper.
>
> .\xdiff.txt
xdiff.txt is ok for an open-source project.
For commercial: a nicely formated PDF-file.
>>[...]
>>>>xHarbour.com, commercial distribution.
>>>>
>>>>Expectations:
>>>>
>>>>I would expect at least a document, which gives an overview of the
>>>>syntax modification abilities of the xHarbour language-core.
>>>>Something like "Modifying Syntax of xHarbour" or "Migrating to xHarbour".
>
> xHarbour (The open source compiler) is a project that saw contributions from
> a number of developers: Each modifying the parts of xHarbour as he saw fit
> within the general guidlines of this being a multi-platform, Clipper
> compatible compiler. Any documentation or examples were written along the
> way, including the tools to allow you to format that documentation into
> something you might be more comfortable in using like:
> /txt Create an ASCII file instead of a Norton Guide
> /con Create an ASCII file without formfeeds
> /hpc Helpc source file
> /ngi Adds the -NG switch to EHC command for compile for
> DOS/Windows/Linux.
> /rtf Winhelp source code for Windows
> /os2 OS/2 help source code For OS/2
> /htm Generate HTML output
> /chm Generate HTML source files for Windows .CHM Help files
> /pdf Generate an Adobe Portable Document (.PDF)
> /trf Gerenate Linux TROFF code
> /doc Create continuous ASCII file w/o author information
this sounds very interesting.
but as already stated: i discuss the commercial distribution.
> Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour is not something that every developer
> involved in the project likely had the ability or even desire to do.
ok
> However, anyone that could contribute something in this regard, did either
> directly, or by requesting the additions.
ok
> If you have a specific
> requirement, you will never know if you have the ability or desire to be
> Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour if you don't at least start with the
> basics, and maybe familiarise yourself with the abilities of the product
> before you can decide on any perceived shortcomings.
My 'desire' was from an abstract nature.
> If you wish to be having your Clipper code Migrating to xHarbour, that is 1
> issue, but other dialects (VO, Xbase++) could be more work. Since no one
> has done this yet, the process is not documented at this time.
I understand.
It looks that you (xharbour) don't know your own language core.
>>>A getting started guide is being put together. As for "Modifying
>>>Syntax", If you have a specific example that you can't figure out,
>>>please post it to the xHarbour help group, and someone will likely have a
>>>solution.
>>
>>I've stated above what i miss.
>>
>>context : [1]
>>expectation : paper to evaluate xharbour language-core, especially in
>>context of modifying / extending, mainly to serve migration issues.
>
> No one can tell you specifically what to change without knowing what you're
> trying to accomplish.
I've described this above.
Abstractness.
>>>>Rationales:
>>>>
>>>>Those Syntax Modification Abilities are a significant benefit against
>>>>competitive producs.
>>>
>>>The beauty of open-source.
>>
>>I don't meant the open-source.
>>
>>I meant the ability to modify the Syntax by any provided system.
>>
>>context : [1]
>
> Are you saying that (and I paraphrase) 'xHarbour is better than the
> competition because you can modify the language syntax' ?
Yes, that's correct.
Expecially if the process is documented.
And this already in pre-sales-documentation.
The name "harbour" becomes his real sense.
xHarbour ("...as a more aggressive alternative to the conservative style
of development...") should provide this functionality.
source of quote: http://www.xharbour.com/about_xharbour.php
>>>>This document would give any interested developer the ability to
>>>>quickly evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the
>>>>constructs needed.
>>>
>
> Needed for what? You don't know what's missing yet!
The "interested developer" knows the "constructs needed".
I speak in general.
> The goal of [1] is not to be a lesson in compiler architecture.
This is clear.
> I assure you that if you just _TRY_ whatever it is you are gearing up for,
> someone _will_ be able to help you out should you hit a snag.
My suggestion / expectation is from a technical _and_ business nature.
> You just have to make your request where the developers will see it.
> news.xharbour.org.
I've made the request, here.
You can pass this to your developers and create the whitepaper.
>>>There is plenty to read in the .\doc tree. It really should inspire you
>>>to jump in if that's your wish.
>>
>>context : [1]
>
> Sorry?
I am a potential commercial customer.
Not an interested open-source developer / user.
>>>>Based on the evaluation, a developer could implement those
>>>>modifications or suggest them to the developement-team.
>>>>
>>>Which is how xHarbour has gotten to where it is so far.
>>
>>context : open-source
>>"so far" => likely true.
>
> very.
ok
>>context : [1]
>>"so far" => false.
>
> Not a clue what you mean here.
My expression itself was false.
Sorry for the caused confusion.
I meant: viewed as a commercial product, is xHarbour is not very far.
[personal opinion based on personal expectations, which are more or less
expectations of potential customers. ]
>>>>Migrations from several xBase / Clipper descendants to xHarbour would
>>>>be simplified, something which could extend the xHarbour userbase on a
>>>>long term significantly.
>>>
>>>Eventually, that may be true.
>>
>>context : [1]
>>
>>The xharbour open-source project with an commercial grade distribution
>>_and_ with commercial grade evaluation papers would surely reach this
>>goal.
>
> Why not download it and find out how it works for you?
I've downloaded the demo.
But there are no evaluation papaers to download.
That's why i have requested one.
With an argumentation line, why it is worth for xharbour.com to invest
the time to produce it.
I estimate a simple paper could be produced in a few hours.
>>>Paul
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>You have ommitted quoting 2 of my questions.
>>
>>This does not matter that much, as the questions were mainly adressed to
>>another person.
>>
>>But you should mark the omittance.
>
> I guess I missed that.
that's ok.
Rob
I wasn't meaning to stifle any of the excellent discussions on this NG.
Ilias has, however, been extremely insulting to people who have tried to
help him. As you are already aware of to this, I will withdraw and watch
to see how it develops...
ilias
I've notice some off-topic postings in this thread, which discuss my person.
Please avoid further off-topic postings in this thread.
I've already given one answer with further references for interested
readers:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=oprvr4ho...@news.cis.dfn.de
Any reader can decide himself.
However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad personality.
To those people: please have at least the manners to open up a new
thread which is tagged as off-topic ([OT]), or to open up a follow-up
thread, again with an "[OT]" marker.
Thank you for accepting the rules of democracy and for keeping this
newsgroup (and the resulting archives) at a high value for every
interested reader.
ilias
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:oprvrw58...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:47:44 -0400, pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>can i extend the xIDE?
>>>>>>if yes, in which language?
>>>>>
>>>>>C or xHarbour.
>>>>
>>>>there's no support for C++ extensions?
>>>
>>>Not directly at this time. You can create wrappers if needed.
>>
>>=> {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
>>
>>=> {xHarbour accesses C++ via wrappers}
>>
>>Is there an automated wrapper-generator available?
>
> No.
ok.
I'll open a seperate thread subjecting xHarbour C++ support.
>>>>>>Is there any migration-guide available?
>>>>>
>>>>>In addition to the .\doc directory,
>>>>
>>>>i did not found a migration guid in .\doc
>>>
>>>I did not mean strictly named 'migration' - Just that there are docs of
>>>some sort in this directory
>>
>>Could you please name those documents?
>
> There are ~110 files in .\doc and .\doc\en (not to mention another 30+ in
> .\doc\es) and the Changelogs which is sort of a history of how xHarbour grew
> over time. It's not perfect, nor complete solution, but should give you an
> idea of how things work.... till that getting started guide is ready. (When
> it's ready, it's ready.)
I meant the documents that are "some sort" of migration (not strictly
named so).
>>A folder "doc\html\migration" or similar would be very helpful.
>
> Sounds plausible.
ok.
>>>>>>Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with xHarbour (which
>>>>>>limitations)?
>>>>>
>>>>>xHarbour does not contain any VO classes.
>>>>
>>>>ok
>>>>
>>>>>Although multiple class syntax flavours are supported, The VO syntax
>>>>>is not directly supported by the compiler.
>>>>
>>>>i don't understand this.
>>>
>>>For instance, Classy class syntax is supported in 1.x and 2.x flavours
>>
>>=> {Versioned "Flavours", supporting multiple Class Syntax, including
>>"Classy" }
>>
>>this terminology [Flavours, Classy] is foreign to me.
>
> Substitute Versions for Flavours then.
I understand.
"Flavours" means basically "Versions".
Ok.
[You should kept standard terminology]
>>is there any document describing this?
>
> Not directly. You can see how some of the Class syntax is handled by the
> preprocessor by viewing include\hbclass.ch
file found.
> Otherwise, have a look at source\rtl\tget.prg for 1 example of Class use.
file not available. [commercial demo]
but thank you for teh suggestion.
>>Are "Flavours" like "Dialects" [e.g. Smalltalk]?
>>
>>Did you meant "Classical [Clipper]" and not "Classy"?
>
> No. The proper name is actually Class(y) and it was a 3rd party class
> engine for Clipper.
Is this used in other Clipper descendands, too?
>>>and
>>>_certain_ aspects of other flavours including VO, though we did not
>>>specifically persue 100% direct VO syntax - it should not be a major
>>>effort
>>>I would think to get it working. I don't know how much effort, because
>>>I didn't really try it myself much, and don't know any else who did.
>>
>>ok
>
> Which, (by the way), you'll also see how that was partly done in hbclass.ch
> (mentioned above)
ok
>>>>can i support VO syntax indirectly, e.g. whilst implementing my own
>>>>"class syntax flavours"?
>>>
>
> Since xHarbour already supports a few forms of Class syntax, and you wish to
> impliment your own while using another, then yes.
ok
>>>>if yes, what is the estimated effort for doing this?
>
> I can't answer that without know what you want to do. See hbclass.ch first,
> then ask again.
ok
>>>>must i implement the "class syntax" in the xharbour source code?
>
> As above.
ok
>>>>or is it possible to use some simpler mechanics (e.g. due to an
>>>>template)?
>>>
>>>As above. We didn't really try. I suspect it can be done in the
>>>preprocessor. It may just be worth your effort to install xHarbour
>>>and see how it goes.
>
>>Why should i try, if {we} do not know.
>
> I meant there was not much effort to go too much beyond what VO support is
> already there. If you don't want to try it how will you know if something
> you require hasn't been implimented?
Due to the whitepaper, that xharbour.com will hopefully create and
provide soon.
> As for Templates, xHarbour does not use templates.
ok
Ron Pinkas
>
> This is possibly not enouth.
>
> Ever thought about that?
Sorry, I give up. I suggest you look for other solutions.
Ron
Gary Stark
Ron Pinkas wrote:
That didn't take very long at all. :)
Gary Stark
ilias wrote:
> [general remark]
>
> I've notice some off-topic postings in this thread, which discuss my person.
>
> Please avoid further off-topic postings in this thread.
Warmning people about your trolling is very much on-topic within this and the
clcvo newsgroups. Your behaviour over the last few months has been rude,
arrogant, assinine, unfriendly, and just plain abhorrent. People need to be
warned about you, and your behaviour.
If you don't like it, I suggest that you either
1: Change your behaviour. Don't troll. Be nice. Don't terminate a discussion
because you believe that facts presented to you are a "faulty conclusion". They
are not. Behave yourself, and act like a mature professional programmer, instead
of a grubby, spoilt little two year old whose mummy won't buy him some candy.
When you ask someone a question, pay attention to the answer that is given. You
have no rights to expect an answer; people will, if they have the time and
inclincation, provide you an answer in their own good time. If that doesn't suit
you ... tough!
2: Go away.
> However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
> discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad personality.
Perhaps if your "personality" was more friendly, less arrogant, and more of a
PERSONality, people would not feel a need to warn others of you.
You need to sit down and reflect for a few moments about why it might be that so
many see an urgent need to warn others about your behaviour. It is not the ones
who are generating the warnings who are at fault.
ilias
readers) can follow quickly. I've manually replaced the three following
lines]
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>>>The poster meant a direct combination of Clipper / C++ in one
>>>>product, with all the freedom of creating and combining both
>>>>languages (linking, debugging, direct crossaccess to objects etc.)
>>>>
>>>The poster is aware of those capabilites of xHarbour.
>>
>>You mean the capabilities that he stated.
>
> What else could I have meant?
what i've written below.
>>Not that ones i've stated hypthetically.
>
> There is no difference.
I think there is.
see below.
>>>>This is definetely not something that xHarbour provides or that
>>>>xHarbour could provide in a reasonably timeframe, as it would come
>>>>close to an redesign.
>>>
>>>How can you tell me, that xHarbour can not provide that, when I'm the
>>>very person that developed that capability?
>>
>>xharbour has the capabilities that i've described above hypothetically?
>
> Yes.
This is impressive.
-
notice "linking" and "direct crossaccess to objects" in my hopothetical
description.
So: can i link an xHarbour module to an C++ module?
And: do i have direct crossaccess (between the linkable modules) to
objects etc.?
Finally: all this linked code is debuggable in one debugger?
>>>>Wouldn't it?
>>>
>>>No it wouldn't! It's already avilable.
>>
>>Where is the whitepapar about that?
>
> \doc\inline_c.txt
there is no such file.
>>Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
>
> Here:
[...] (some demo code)
This is not a professional method to provide sample code for customer
evaluation purposes.
[1]
> You may see the same technique used in source\rtl\win32ole.prg (and tested
> with tests\testole.prg).
I've downloaded the commercial demo.
Those files are not available.
suggestion: provide download location to complete commercial
distribution demo.
>>>>>You may review tests\inline_c.prg for a sample.
>>>>
>>>>I have searched the complete demo installation of xHB.
>>>>
>>>>There is not "inline_c.prg".
>>>
>>>The commercial distribution of xHarbour from xHarbour.com does not
>>>provide all the samples avilable for xHarbour.
>>
>>why not? at least as seperate download.
>
> Because I don't like redundancy.
Irrelevant.
relevant: [potential] Customers convenience.
>>wait...
>>
>>You mean you have implemented full C++ support in xHarbour...
>
> Yes.
[1]
>>But you don't provide a demo for this functionality?
>
> Yes we do.
You do not provide a demo for customers.
[1]
> Any one that doesn't understand that the #pragma BEGINDUMP
> provides direct support of ANYTHING that's supported by the backend
> compiler, and that almost all common compilers used as backend support C++,
> simply isn't qualified to use the feature.
I don't understand that "#pragma BEGINDUP".
>>This sounds not very rational.
>
> To those not understanding the architecture in place.
I don't understand it.
I am one potential customer.
Maybe other potential customers don't understand it, too.
thus: [1]
>>>It provided only select demos to
>>>demonstrate xHarbour extensions over similiar products. You may find a
>>>demonstration of infile C code, in samples\c_struc.prg.
>>
>>I don't see any C++ in this demo.
>
> Because you don't understand the genral nature of the feature.
false.
because there is no C++ in this demo.
thus: [1]
[...]
>>Where is the cppDemo.prg ?
>
> I see you are very fond of the very thing I despise.
Sorry, i cannot extract the essence.
Please rephrase.
[...]
>>>FlagShip (another very popular Clipper compabtible compiler).
[...]
>>May it's time for "WarBird"...
>
> Ha?
A ship.
A flying one
WarBirds are far out in space.
> Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>The majority of the users (customers) and potential customers would expect
>>that there is a "release date, possibly with status/progress report" about
>>an "long time awaited major software extension" (xIDE) from an commercial
>>vendor (xharbour.com) available on the website.
>
> I'm sorry if the site doesn't meet with your expectations.
The site is not the main problem.
The information politics is.
>>>"inacceptable" is typically used in contexts where one has "superiority"
>>>and ability to "demand". "inacceptable" then suggests "bad consequence"
>>>to the person not being able to deliver "acceptable" results. Therefore
>>>no I don't agree, because you are in no position to demand anything. As
>>>I said you may have "expectations", but you are in no position to decide
>>>what is acceptable, or not.
>>
>>nice derivation.
>
> ?
you derived the conclusion "...in no position to decide what is
acceptable, or not".
>>but a faulty one.
your derived conclusion is false.
> Please don't think you are in a position to grade my logic -
I don't grade your logic.
I grade the logic of your sayings.
> you'd have to EARN such position!
This is false.
- I don't have to earn the 'position' to grade the logic of your sayings.
- I have to earn the 'position', that the readers take my grading seriously.
this is a major difference.
And it's totally independent of you and your logic.
>>Of course i am in the postition to decide what is "acceptable or not".
>
> Not in a public context.
of course, see explanation below.
>>I am a potential customer of your commercial product.
>>
>>Do you agree with "inacceptable" in the given context, viewed from an
>>customers / potential customers perspective?
>
> No, "inacceptable" does not exist in that context - valid alternative is
> "unwillingness to buy".
context:
"
subject : long time awaited major software extension
vendor : commercial
expectation: release date, possibly with status/progress report on web
"
estimated effort to publish this information: 1 hour.
I call this an inacceptable information politics.
>>>>=> {C++ OO concepts cannot be used directly to extend xIDE / xHarbour}
>>>>
>>>>[wrappers necessary]
>>>
>>>C function calls are part of the C++ language. The above view is a very
>>>limited way of looking at this. Similarly one can say that Windows API
>>>can not be extended with C++ callbacks, because the call back need to be
>>>a C function. Entry (and exit) points to (and from) C++ are almost
>>>always plain C function calls - C function calls in turn are part of the
>>>C++ language.
>>
>>This sounds like a justification.
>
> Try "explanation", instead.
Whatever.
A simple sample would avoid any confusion.
>>Is there any example available, which demonstrated the direct usage of
>>C++, including inheritance, to extend xIDE / xHarbour?
>>
>>expectation: Document describing C++ usage.
>
> Yes, look at contrib\hbzlib [which I already mentioned before.] it provides
> interface to the famous ZipArchive C++ library.
[1]
>>>>>Command Header file.
>>>>
>>>>Any documentation on this?
>>>
>>>Yes of course, this is a very known and documented aspect of Clipper.
>>>Which Clipper documentation did you review and were not able to find the
>>>info in?
>>
>>The question was raised in context of xHarbour specific syntax
>>modifications.
>
> No, the context was extending the syntax of xHarbour [as any other Clipper
> compabitble language] using the #[x]command and [x]translate Clipper
> compabtible Pre-Processor directives.
I know in which context i have raised my question.
Your assumtions do not change this.
> If you care enough to know, you'll learn very quickly how to implement
> almost any syntax using these powerfull capabilities.
I understand.
>>>>>Something similar to #define SomeFunc( x, y ) SomeOtherFunc( x, y )
>>>>>but much more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>Extended preprocessor?
>>>
>>>Much extended.
>>
>>Who extended the preprocessor?
>
> The Clipper Pre-Processor author.
ok
> xHarbour in-turn also adds some extensions, documented in .\xdiff.txt
[1]
>>>>Any documentation on this?
>>>
>>>Of course, as I said above the Clipper Pre-Processor is very well
>>>documented.
>>
>>Clarification: Documentation about the xharbour specific extensions.
>>
>>available?
>
> Yes, [again] in .\xdiff.txt.
[1]
> But one must first learn to walk ...
In open-source projects, one has to walk much.
Many like this walking.
Commercial distributions should minimize walking.
That's one reason to pay for freely available software.
> - the VO
> syntax extensions that you asked about could be implemented with the Clipper
> directives we pointed out. These directived are very well documented [for
> those that care to READ them.]
You don't point this out as obvious as you present it here.
again: [1]
>>>Just look at "Syntax Extensions", and "Language Extensions".
>>
>>This is a good documentation.
>>
>>For language users.
-
>>>>Can i expect those document / information from xHarbour?
>>>
>>>Yes, and it's already available.
>>
>>No, it isn't.
>
> Why do you ask, if you don't respect the answers you get?
i've stated the reasons above.
>>There is not enough information for language design.
>>
>>Please reread the above description, especially the last paragraph.
>
> It's time for YOU to do some reading, you are the one with the questions,
> right?
Yes, i have the questions.
> Between the above page, and the .\xdiff.txt document,
[1]
> all xHarbour
> lanugauage extensions are covered. Add to this the samples folder from the
> xHarbour.com distribution, and you should have anyting you could hope for,
> and then some. Now please invest more of your time in reading, and testing,
> instead of posting redundant messages.
I've visited your site (www.xHarbour.com), as an potential customer of
your commercial xHarbour distribution.
I've read around in the site.
I've downloaded the demo.
But i miss the commercial grade documentation.
You got very much feedback in this thread.
A critical "fist contact evaluation".
-
suggestion: improve/increase analysis of "first contact feedback".
[you wan't get it often]
> Thanks for your input,
Use it.
Thank you very much for your patience and for your time.
> Ron
-
[1] .\xdiff.ext is not available in the current commercial distribution
-
[I become curious. I will possibly try to compile some VO code later]
Ron Pinkas
Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>>What kind of question is that?
>>
>>A simple question.
>
> What could be the answer to such "simple question"? ID? SSN? Birth Date?
> Address? What?
e.g.: "I'm the manager of the xIDE project"
>>I asked for the "source of this information"?
>>
>>He answered "...I am".
>>
>>I asked "Who are you"?
>>
>>Mainly to evaluate the validity of his answer.
>
> How would you evaluate the validity?
[apologize: i meant the validity of the information-source]
usenet / internet research
> Hire a PI to verify the information?
or course not.
>>>Paul doesn't need to be anyone,
he seems to be a friendly human.
this is much more than a 'someone'.
>>>he's simply someone who answered your questions.
yes, and a friendly one.
His answer "... I am" changed him temporarily to an "information-source".
Thus i asked to validate.
[I really try to understand this overreaction, but i fail.]
>>>Additionally I did tell you that he is one of the founders of
>>>xHarbour.com, what additional info do you need?
see above.
>>>Social security? Birth date? Full legal name?
funny.
>>>Even if he wasn't involved with xHarbour at all,
>>>who cares who is he? You should simply thank him for taking the time to
>>>answer your questions instead of antagonize him!
faulty interpretation.
I don't antogonize him.
>>You overreact.
>
> You are in no position to decide that for me.
I don't decide that for you.
I decide that for me.
>>Please stay calmy.
>
> I am.
cool.
>>>>>>i did not find something on www.xharbour.com
>>>>>
>>>>>.... and this will be updated when appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>"appropriate"
>>>>
>>>>who decides about?
>>>
>>>Who decides the policy of any given company? Do you really don't know?
>>
>>no, i don't know, as i don't know the companies structure.
>
> So you expected the *names* of decision makers? Or what?
No, i expected the answer to a simple question i've made.
possible answers: marketing, developement, CEO, COO, or... a name.
Simply to know, who's responsible for the information politics, which i,
as a potential customer, rate as "inacceptable".
I know the answer now.
>>>>=> {xIDE cannot be extended directly with C++}
>>>
>>>Not true.
>>
>>please provide an example.
>
> Sorry, I don't have the time, or the interest.
This sounds not very professional for a commercial software vendor.
[i know: i am in no position do decide that, or so]
>>>>Could you please name those documents?
>>>
>>>Surely you can't expect others to do all your work! How much trouble is
>>>it to list the content of a given directory?
>>
>>You become irrational.
>
> Please don't abuse my politness.
Please check for a moment the possibility:
Do you abuse my politness?
>It's not your place to grade my rational!
of course it is.
>>>[Personal suggestion - avoid these kind of responses. Abstract
>>
> "comments"
>
>>>as above, are saying nothing, and are extremely irritating, to me, and
>>>probably many others.]
>>
>>There is an simply logic behind this.
>
> Yes, It's clear that you'd think that, or you wouldn't have done it.
faulty conclusion.
[I could do things from which i think they are not logical.]
> I simply point out the impression of others.
How do you know their impression?
>>I'm surprised.
>>
>>The xharbour architects do not know about the syntax-modifications-
>>abilities of their own product.
>
> No the surprise is that you don't understand that the IMPLEMENTAION of such
> capabailities in order to simulate VO syntax is not of intrest to those
> devlopers. This has nothing to do with knowledge - you simply distorted the
> context.
i see.
>>>>Or do you simply meant: "I don't know"?
>>>
>>>No, WE don't know.
>>
>>yes, i've understood this.
>
> I suspect that you still don't understand.
feel free to suspect.
> What we do not know is, how much of VO OOP syntax is supported, and how much
> if any is not supported. The reason we don't know, is we did not try. The
> reason we did not try, is we obviouslty didn't have such need. Some
> contributors did contribute some VO syntax, and it's up to you to see how
> much is and isn't supported.
I asked about syntax-modifications in general.
> BTW, how much code do you have to port from VO, or xBase++ if any?
Nothing.
> Could you describe the projects please?
No.
They do not exist.
But this is irrelevant.
> Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>>I'll try my best.
>>
>>This is possibly not enouth.
>>
>>Ever thought about that?
>
> Sorry, I give up.
Feel free to give up.
> I suggest you look for other solutions.
Of course.
But be aware of this:
You give this answer to every potential customer who reads this
newsgroup, which has a similar "level of expectations" with mine.
> Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Sorry, but please don't expect any further responses from me.
"Sorry" and "please".
Words Of Gentleness.
-
> Ron
-
[note to readers: please review the unanswerd message, which clarifies
the level of xHarbour C++ support. The 3 questions remained unanswered,
but sometimes it's 'silence' that speaks ]
-
I missed to place the following footnote in my last message:
[1] - please provide a cppDEMO.prg or better cppDEMO.xbp
Ron Pinkas
> >
>
> That didn't take very long at all. :)
As I get older I tend to be more receptive to [repetitive] input I get. :-)
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
> discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad personality.
You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different individuals
care enough to WARN other people about you! It's especially ODD in the
context of an NG where community members are so eager to help.
In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of messages,
from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even one similar
reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important information for you to
consider.
There is a common Israeli saying that might further explain what I suggest:
"When more than person tell you that you are drunk - go to sleep!"
Ron
P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly recommend:
"How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/002-0943277-8302406?v=glance
Ron
pe
All this quoting is making me dizzy. :-)
Obviously there is some confusion caused by the origin of the various items
involved here. Open Source vs the demo you've downloaded. The demo does
not include a number of directories that are part of the open source
project. We will review whether any of this should change.
Let's be clear. We know exactly how the product works. Twisting the words
around to make it appear to not be the case serves no useful purpose. If
you don't want to try your test out with the demo you've downloaded, there
isn't a thing I, or anyone else can do for you to tell you whether the VO or
other extensions will meet your needs. As for what you can and can't do
with a .ch file, the majority of the people that want to use xHarbour either
don't care how a .ch file works, or know it already because they're
migrating from Clipper, where it's documented in the manuals.
If you don't have the Clipper manual or the VO Help file, for now, you will
have to use Google which you are so fond of to find the relevent
information. If you don't want to download the source to xHarbour, you'll
have to access the cvs repository at Sourceforge.net to look at the relevant
source code or other documents I've mentioned.
It is not our goal to educate you on how the compiler works. If you want to
take some initiative, we'll help you over the rough spots. As stated,
whatever documentation that is perceived to be missing will be added over
time. We will determine the content and the timeframe. As stated as well,
a Getting Started Guide is being put together that will touch on certain
migration issues. When it's ready, it's ready.
_Anyone_ that is using the product and would like a modifiction can simply
ask. Obviously, Clients get priority. (Typically, non-clients should go to
news.xharbour.org and partake of the developer resources available there for
FREE.) They will either be given the change, or the info on how to change
it if that is their desire. Requests should be reasonable since the
contributors are doing this for FREE. If you want to turn xHarbour into VO,
that is not a reasonable request. If you need some change to the
preprocessor that will get you over a hump and it does not impact the true
purpose of xHarbour, then no problem. If you require wholesale changes,
then you or anyone are free to start your own open source project using
xHarbour as a starting point, (It's called a fork, Luke) within the
guidelines of the GPL.
If you have a further wish list of items that you feel would improve the
offerings from xHarbour.com, you are free to state them in a clear point
form, and we'll take your suggestions into consideration. We will not,
however, continue to go through a long drawn out nitpick session where we
have to try and figure out what you want.
Paul
pe
Regarding C++ mode - When I compile xHarbour using any number of C
compilers, the entire thing is compiled in C++ mode, so there is no question
about whether it works or not. It just does.
The one thing you can't do is directly treat a C++ object as if it were an
'Clipper' object. There is no direct correlation.
Paul
Turan Fettahoglu
to troll the Alaska's xBASE++ newsgroups next?
There was nothing troll-like on alaska-software.news.*.
Does anybody know if they already declared him persona non grata?
Turan
Ron Pinkas
> The one thing you can't do is directly treat a C++ object as if it were an
> 'Clipper' object. There is no direct correlation.
Lieteraly of course you are correct, but from a practical stand point, It
can be done by means of a smart wrapper such as the one used in Win32Ole.prg
(and as per sample I I posted here) - utilizing the OnError Handler.
Ron
Gary Stark
Ron Pinkas wrote:
That "I become more and more intolerant of fools" is how I like to explain it.
Gary Stark
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Ilias,
>
> > However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
> > discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad personality.
>
> You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different individuals
> care enough to WARN other people about you! It's especially ODD in the
> context of an NG where community members are so eager to help.
That is precisely the point.
> In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of messages,
> from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even one similar
> reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important information for you to
> consider.
Indeed. We've had a couple of dolts in the clcvo ng over the years (which ng hasn't?),
but nobody with the offensiveness and biliousness of Ilias.
> There is a common Israeli saying that might further explain what I suggest:
>
> "When more than person tell you that you are drunk - go to sleep!"
Ilias appears to think that denial is a river in Egypt.
> P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
> intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly recommend:
>
> "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
He're the rub. You can offer - in good faith - assistance or a helping hand, but he
throws it back at (not to) you, and he does so with an air of contempt. English is
unlikely to be his native language. When in clcvo we suggested (offerring a way out for
his rude behaviour and arrogant attitude) that it may be due to issues related to his
(lack of) command of the language, he flatly rejected that.
Ilias is a rare treat indeed: it seems that he considers himself to be perfect.
The trouble is, where he may believe he's the perfect programmer (with no apparent
background or experience - fancy that) he's really just coming across as a perfect moron.
Except that now I'm probably insulting morons.
Gary Stark
Turan Fettahoglu wrote:
> So our "friend" has been killfiled by xHarbour as well. Didn't he announce
> to troll the Alaska's xBASE++ newsgroups next?
>
> There was nothing troll-like on alaska-software.news.*.
Dunno. The Alaska groups are private though, IIRC. I should probably go and
give Al a heads up on this.
> Does anybody know if they already declared him persona non grata?
I wouldn't be at all surprised.
pe
news:Utnbb.2086$iT4.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Absolutely.
It just sounded like that's where the 'request' was coming from.
Paul
>
> Ron
>
>
Mark L. Cooper
I'm sorry! I was only joking when I suggested Harbour might be a better fit
for Ilias' talents. I never thought he'd terrorize you guys too.
Mark
--
Mark L. Cooper
Columbus, Ohio USA
Mark L. Cooper
Your restraint is awesome<g>!
Mark L. Cooper
>
> All this quoting is making me dizzy. :-)
>
> Obviously there is some confusion caused by the origin of the various
items
> involved here. Open Source vs the demo you've downloaded. The demo does
> not include a number of directories that are part of the open source
...
> form, and we'll take your suggestions into consideration. We will not,
> however, continue to go through a long drawn out nitpick session where we
> have to try and figure out what you want.
>
He's already getting what he wants: he's making you dizzy trying to follow
his pointless meanderings.
He does not have any Clipper _OR_ VO source code to test against your demo.
Ilias is in heaven right now because he is talking with the founders of a
company in a public forum. For some reason this is important to him. Brian
at Grafxsoft didn't give him anywhere near the amount of personal attention
that you guys have, so Ilias almost immediately began denigrating Brian,
Grafxsoft, and VO. It's taking a while, but he's after you guys now too.
pe
"Mark L. Cooper" <mlcooper...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bklnkd$33te1$1...@ID-147466.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Paul,
>
> >
> > All this quoting is making me dizzy. :-)
> >
> > Obviously there is some confusion caused by the origin of the various
> items
> > involved here. Open Source vs the demo you've downloaded. The demo
does
> > not include a number of directories that are part of the open source
>
> ...
> > form, and we'll take your suggestions into consideration. We will not,
> > however, continue to go through a long drawn out nitpick session where
we
> > have to try and figure out what you want.
> >
>
>
>
> He's already getting what he wants: he's making you dizzy trying to follow
> his pointless meanderings.
>
> He does not have any Clipper _OR_ VO source code to test against your
demo.
I am willing to get a definate answer on this, but certainly, only to a
point. If xHarbour does not meet his needs (if that was the point), there
_are_ other xBase dialects out there. (You know who you are, and you'll
notice I did not mention you by name) :-)
>
> Ilias is in heaven right now because he is talking with the founders of a
> company in a public forum. For some reason this is important to him. Brian
> at Grafxsoft didn't give him anywhere near the amount of personal
attention
> that you guys have, so Ilias almost immediately began denigrating Brian,
> Grafxsoft, and VO. It's taking a while, but he's after you guys now too.
>
Patience of a St. Paul
<g>
Mark L. Cooper
>
>Patience of a St. Paul
>
><g>
VBG
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Ilias,
>
>>However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
>>discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad
>>personality.
>
> You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different
> individuals care enough to WARN other people about you!
[As i see, you join the off-topic discussion about my person]
I don't have to.
I left comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
They simply miss to talk about me.
> It's especially ODD in the context of an NG where community members
> are so eager to help.
i see.
> In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of
> messages, from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even
> one similar reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important
> information for you to consider.
It is irrelevant to me.
There's relevance for yourself.
> There is a common Israeli saying that might further explain what I
> suggest:
>
> "When more than person tell you that you are drunk - go to sleep!"
Thus a group of lying persons can sent you to bed?
funny!
> Ron
>
> P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
> intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly recommend:
>
> "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
>
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/002-0943277-8302406?v=glance
I'm sure you've read it.
And i'm sure you had success.
-
I prefere my way.
I let people 'influence' themselves.
You understand the difference.
-
May i suggest you one 'book'
"How To Serve Customers"
> Ron
BTW: In the time you wrote this irrelevant [off-topic] message, you had
better answered those simple questions about C++ in this message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
-
ilias
I extract: accessing C++ objects as Clipper-objects needs a wrapper.
An automated wrapper-generator is not available.
> Ron
ilias
>All this quoting is making me dizzy. :-)
you've broken the conversation. This is unfriendly against me and
especially against the intrested readers, which have to extract the
infrormation from your long answer thus they can evaluate it in the
given context of the previous messages.
[...]
> Let's be clear. We know exactly how the product works.
[...]
of course you know...
as you know your directory structures and their contents.
as you know the difference between full and partial [C++ support].
as you know the difference between open-source and commercial.
as you know to serve.
-
There's a long way...
...untill commercial clippers will find a harbour.
Gary Stark
ilias wrote:
> Ron Pinkas wrote:
> > Ilias,
> >
> >>However, there are people which have nothing better to do than
> >>discussing my person and warning the people from my very bad
> >>personality.
> >
> > You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different
> > individuals care enough to WARN other people about you!
>
> [As i see, you join the off-topic discussion about my person]
>
> I don't have to.
Nor any other conclusion.
Have you considered looking at the flaws in the swen virus and asking the authors to fix
those?
>
> I left comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
Good. We hope it's permanent.
> They simply miss to talk about me.
And if you even begin to believe that, you're an even bigger fool than I already give you
credit for.
> > In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of
> > messages, from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even
> > one similar reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important
> > information for you to consider.
>
> It is irrelevant to me.
==> Faulty conclusion.
> There's relevance for yourself.
==> Faulty conclusion.
> I prefere my way.
>
> I let people 'influence' themselves.
>
> You understand the difference.
I'm sure Ron does. But do you?
Gary Stark
ilias wrote:
> >Ilias,
> >All this quoting is making me dizzy. :-)
> [...]
>
> you've broken the conversation. This is unfriendly against me and
Oh, you poor little darling. Diddums get upset because someone is
unfriendly?
> especially against the intrested readers, which have to extract the
No ... make that interested "reader".
Singular.
Just the one.
Just you!
> There's a long way...
And we sincerely hope that you travel along that long path all the way
to the end.
But please, don't bother with the return journey.
ilias
Mark L. Cooper wrote:
[...]
> Ilias is in heaven right now because he is talking with the founders of a
> company in a public forum. For some reason this is important to him. Brian
> at Grafxsoft didn't give him anywhere near the amount of personal attention
> that you guys have, so Ilias almost immediately began denigrating Brian,
> Grafxsoft, and VO.
[Denigration or selfdenigration? Some links about "Brian"]
Ilias fix
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=fs1plv8uunt3p6tvmk81fc31bjv3autmml%404ax.com
[OT] - It Is Not The Fault Of Brian.
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=hie6iv47t1c3fkhn6...@4ax.com
You can download CAVO 2.7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uuv2iv8c6tvlfmhhqanhotd3p91vn5ar1o%404ax.com
> It's taking a while, but he's after you guys now too.
I'm finished with VO.
I'm finished with xharbour (although i have still a little hope)
> Mark
pe
Paul
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:3F704D5F...@abeon.com...
pe
don't feel it was unfriendly at all.
If you follow my advice, you'll get the answers you might be looking for.
If your intent is to simply highlight any shortcomings you perceive (based
mostly on misunderstanding or 'non-standard' communication style), without
actually trying the product, then I'll not be playing that game.
I will do whatever I can to help you out within the guidlines I've
specified. I hope that is sufficient for you.
Paul
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:3F704E88...@abeon.com...
ilias
pe wrote:
> I'm sorry you could not extract anything relevant out of my message. I
> don't feel it was unfriendly at all.
>
> If you follow my advice, you'll get the answers you might be looking for.
> If your intent is to simply highlight any shortcomings you perceive (based
> mostly on misunderstanding or 'non-standard' communication style), without
> actually trying the product, then I'll not be playing that game.
>
> I will do whatever I can to help you out within the guidlines I've
> specified. I hope that is sufficient for you.
[...]
ilias
>>I left comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
>
> Good. We hope it's permanent.
>
>>They simply miss to talk about me.
[One of them has even fallen in love with me]
> And if you even begin to believe that, you're an even bigger fool than I already give you
> credit for.
[...]
pe
[...]
90% of this is covered by my statement that we'll review the directories of
the demo and see if we think it needs to be changed.
Save everyone including yourself the trouble and say "I've downloaded the
demo, and notice there's no help files" We'll tell you where to get them,
and life goes on. If you don't want to go get them, then there's no point
in continuing to niggle over the issue. Wait till the demo is in a form
that meets with your requirements.
[...]
> > If you have a specific
> > requirement, you will never know if you have the ability or desire to be
> > Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour if you don't at least start with the
> > basics, and maybe familiarise yourself with the abilities of the product
> > before you can decide on any perceived shortcomings.
>
> My 'desire' was from an abstract nature.
I can't help you with that.
[...]
>
> > If you wish to be having your Clipper code Migrating to xHarbour, that
is 1
> > issue, but other dialects (VO, Xbase++) could be more work. Since no
one
> > has done this yet, the process is not documented at this time.
>
> I understand.
>
> It looks that you (xharbour) don't know your own language core.
Ridiculously false. "xHarbour is a Clipper compatible compiler. As a
bonus, it _may_ contain certain extensions that will assist you should you
wish to try other dialects. If you find something that isn't working, let
us know" Since no one appears to be using these features, it's a low
priority issue.
[...]
> > Are you saying that (and I paraphrase) 'xHarbour is better than the
> > competition because you can modify the language syntax' ?
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
Just curious, but did you know that someone created a package for Clipper
that allowed it to compile Dbase IV code? xHarbour is similar in this
regard. The major difference is that if something is missing, we can add it
using the open-source xHarbour project.. If you don't have the desire to do
so, then ask for what you need and see if someone adds it. If you can't do
either of those, there is no point in bringing up this ill-perceived
shortcoming in xHarbour.
> Expecially if the process is documented.
>
What you are asking for is not something we are selling as a feature. It is
part of the open-source xHarbour project. Either get involved in the
project, or drop the subject.
> And this already in pre-sales-documentation.
>
> The name "harbour" becomes his real sense.
>
> xHarbour ("...as a more aggressive alternative to the conservative style
> of development...") should provide this functionality.
>
> source of quote: http://www.xharbour.com/about_xharbour.php
This statement is taken completely out of context.
>
> >>>>This document would give any interested developer the ability to
> >>>>quickly evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the
> >>>>constructs needed.
> >>>
> >
> > Needed for what? You don't know what's missing yet!
>
> The "interested developer" knows the "constructs needed".
>
> I speak in general.
>
Apparently not.
[...]
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F6D3B79...@abeon.com...
> [...]
>
> 90% of this is covered by my statement that we'll review the directories of
You statement came after my problems with the commercial demo.
> the demo and see if we think it needs to be changed.
I've lost many time.
And you still have to see "if we think it needs to be changed"?
suggestion: You should immediately react to protect further potential
Customers from loosing the same time with this uncomplete demo.
rationale : Potential Customers have higher priority that CEO's that
dislike redundancy.
> Save everyone including yourself the trouble and say "I've downloaded the
> demo, and notice there's no help files" We'll tell you where to get them,
> and life goes on.
I suggested this already.
Minimum: An additional zip with the missing files.
> If you don't want to go get them, then there's no point
> in continuing to niggle over the issue. Wait till the demo is in a form
> that meets with your requirements.
I did not continue to niggle.
You continue to justify something that is not justifyable.
remember: i did not know that the demo is incomplete when i downloaded it.
"There's a long way..."
BTW: you gain knowledge and a deeper understanding of things due to this
thread, but you don't admit that. why? is this so difficult?
> [...]
>
>>>If you have a specific
>>>requirement, you will never know if you have the ability or desire to be
>>>Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour if you don't at least start with the
>>>basics, and maybe familiarise yourself with the abilities of the product
>>>before you can decide on any perceived shortcomings.
>>
>>My 'desire' was from an abstract nature.
>
> I can't help you with that.
rejected.
You can, but you don't want to help me with that.
Of course i will accept this.
But state it correct.
> [...]
>
>>> If you wish to be having your Clipper code Migrating to xHarbour, that
>>> is 1 issue, but other dialects (VO, Xbase++) could be more work. Since
>>> no one has done this yet, the process is not documented at this time.
>>
>> I understand. It looks that you (xharbour) don't know your own language
>> core.
>
> Ridiculously false. "xHarbour is a Clipper compatible compiler. As a
> bonus, it _may_ contain certain extensions that will assist you should you
> wish to try other dialects. If you find something that isn't working, let
> us know" Since no one appears to be using these features, it's a low
> priority issue.
I meant it deeply technically.
> [...]
>
>>>Are you saying that (and I paraphrase) 'xHarbour is better than the
>>>competition because you can modify the language syntax' ?
>>
>>Yes, that's correct.
>
> Just curious, but did you know that someone created a package for Clipper
> that allowed it to compile Dbase IV code? xHarbour is similar in this
> regard. The major difference is that if something is missing, we can add it
> using the open-source xHarbour project.. If you don't have the desire to do
> so, then ask for what you need and see if someone adds it. If you can't do
> either of those, there is no point in bringing up this ill-perceived
> shortcoming in xHarbour.
Yes, very ill-perceived reactions from xHarbour.com
A very long way.
>>Expecially if the process is documented.
>
> What you are asking for is not something we are selling as a feature. It is
> part of the open-source xHarbour project. Either get involved in the
> project, or drop the subject.
I'm a potential commercial customer.
Please have the gentleness to avoid trying to involve me into projects.
You can simply say (as you've done a few times): sorry, not available.
[the discussed part here: documentation about the language-core.
Estimated effort: 5 hours]
>>And this already in pre-sales-documentation.
>>
>>The name "harbour" becomes his real sense.
>>
>>xHarbour ("...as a more aggressive alternative to the conservative style
>>of development...") should provide this functionality.
>>
>>source of quote: http://www.xharbour.com/about_xharbour.php
>
> This statement is taken completely out of context.
A statement raises expectations.
Different minds, different expectations
>>>>>>This document would give any interested developer the ability to
>>>>>>quickly evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the
>>>>>
>> >>>>constructs needed.
>>
>>>Needed for what? You don't know what's missing yet!
>>
>>The "interested developer" knows the "constructs needed".
>>
>>I speak in general.
>
> Apparently not.
of course.
Just see the importance of this issue.
>
> [...]
pe
In your opinion.
Thanks for your interest.
Paul
Ron Pinkas
> > You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different
> > individuals care enough to WARN other people about you!
>
> [As i see, you join the off-topic discussion about my person]
I don't think it's OT.
> I don't have to.
Yes, it was only a suggestion.
> I left comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
>
> They simply miss to talk about me.
I don't know, and don't care. This I believe is OT.
> > It's especially ODD in the context of an NG where community members
> > are so eager to help.
>
> i see.
Good.
> > In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of
> > messages, from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even
> > one similar reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important
> > information for you to consider.
>
> It is irrelevant to me.
Why?
Do you not agree that communication skills are critical to success?
Do you not agree that it's important to minimize friction with others?
Do you not agree that a CURE must begin with a DIAGNOSIS?
> There's relevance for yourself.
Yes.
> > There is a common Israeli saying that might further explain what I
> > suggest:
> >
> > "When more than person tell you that you are drunk - go to sleep!"
>
> Thus a group of lying persons can sent you to bed?
The basic idea of that saying is, that we sometimes hear things that we
don't like, but it arrives from *many* *different* individuals, it usually
suggests that those negative ideas are NOT lies.
Is it possible you have a shortcoming that you are not aware off?
Did you even find ANY fault with yourself?
Did you EVER change your mind about anything in retrospect?
> funny!
No, sad. :-(
> > P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
> > intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly
recommend:
> >
> > "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
> >
> >
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/002-0943277-830240
6?v=glance
>
> I'm sure you've read it.
Yes. I hope you are sincere.
> And i'm sure you had success.
It helped me understand some problems I had. I still have lots to learn
about communication skills.
> I prefere my way.
This is the very problem.
> I let people 'influence' themselves.
Then this is NOT communication!
> You understand the difference.
No i don't see the point in engaging in such discussions without the desire
to gain something clear and acceptable to both parties.
> May i suggest you one 'book'
>
> "How To Serve Customers"
You are just being childish. Life is not about being "getting even". If you
really wanted to get even with me, you'd do better to be SINCERE. I did NOT
offer the book to offend you. I sincerely believe it can greatly help you
understand WHY so many people seems to be HOSTILE toward you.
> BTW: In the time you wrote this irrelevant [off-topic] message, you had
> better answered those simple questions about C++ in this message:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
As I said, I no longer see any value in that discussion - I despise
redundancy.
One of the common definitions of stupidity is:
"Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting DIFFERENT results"
IMO, we were set to do exactly that, go round and round saying the same
things, over and over again. Since I have no idea of how I may change that,
I gave up.
Ron
pe
>
>
> pe wrote:
> > "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F6D3B79...@abeon.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > 90% of this is covered by my statement that we'll review the directories
of
>
> You statement came after my problems with the commercial demo.
>
> > the demo and see if we think it needs to be changed.
>
> I've lost many time.
Had you stated the problem as I've outlined it, this would not be the case.
You did not even mention that you had downloaded anything till way after the
fact. Who was to know what you were talking about?
>
> And you still have to see "if we think it needs to be changed"?
Yes, that is correct. Since it is not you that is dictating how things
operate, we'll accept your imput and weigh your needs against what we think
should be done. In a perfect world, you'll get _exactly_ what you're
looking for. In reality, it may be more, it may be less.
>
> suggestion: You should immediately react to protect further potential
> Customers from loosing the same time with this uncomplete demo.
>
> rationale : Potential Customers have higher priority that CEO's that
> dislike redundancy.
Thanks for the suggestion.
It was difficult to discern what it was you were beating about the bush.
Now that we understand, we will review the situation.
>
> > Save everyone including yourself the trouble and say "I've downloaded
the
> > demo, and notice there's no help files" We'll tell you where to get
them,
> > and life goes on.
>
> I suggested this already.
>
> Minimum: An additional zip with the missing files.
Ok thanks. In the meantime, you now have a source of at least some
documentation that should keep you interested.
>
> > If you don't want to go get them, then there's no point
> > in continuing to niggle over the issue. Wait till the demo is in a form
> > that meets with your requirements.
>
> I did not continue to niggle.
We are _still_ at it.
>
> You continue to justify something that is not justifyable.
>
> remember: i did not know that the demo is incomplete when i downloaded it.
>
> "There's a long way..."
>
> BTW: you gain knowledge and a deeper understanding of things due to this
> thread, but you don't admit that. why? is this so difficult?
As could you. As I've stated - If you want something - just ask in a
coherent fashion, and we'll try to get you whatever you think is missing.
Along the way, we'll both learn something.
Your requests _must_ be clear. I can't read between the lines to fugure out
what you want.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >>>If you have a specific
> >>>requirement, you will never know if you have the ability or desire to
be
> >>>Modifying the Syntax of xHarbour if you don't at least start with the
> >>>basics, and maybe familiarise yourself with the abilities of the
product
> >>>before you can decide on any perceived shortcomings.
> >>
> >>My 'desire' was from an abstract nature.
> >
> > I can't help you with that.
>
> rejected.
>
> You can, but you don't want to help me with that.
I still don't understand what you are after. Please, feel free to show me
in straight forward point form what you would like.
for instance:
1) documentation on how to modify the preprocessor to support <Whatever>
2) help with using <Something>
3) Discuss the merits of supporting VB syntax
4) etc.
>
> Of course i will accept this.
>
> But state it correct.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >>> If you wish to be having your Clipper code Migrating to xHarbour, that
> >>> is 1 issue, but other dialects (VO, Xbase++) could be more work.
Since
> >>> no one has done this yet, the process is not documented at this time.
> >>
> >> I understand. It looks that you (xharbour) don't know your own language
> >> core.
> >
> > Ridiculously false. "xHarbour is a Clipper compatible compiler. As a
> > bonus, it _may_ contain certain extensions that will assist you should
you
> > wish to try other dialects. If you find something that isn't working,
let
> > us know" Since no one appears to be using these features, it's a low
> > priority issue.
>
> I meant it deeply technically.
Since your questions can be construed to be ambiguous, then due to their
indirect nature, you are not going to get a precise answer. Again, we are
splitting hairs. That is your opinion. Thanks for your input.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >>>Are you saying that (and I paraphrase) 'xHarbour is better than the
> >>>competition because you can modify the language syntax' ?
> >>
> >>Yes, that's correct.
> >
> > Just curious, but did you know that someone created a package for
Clipper
> > that allowed it to compile Dbase IV code? xHarbour is similar in this
> > regard. The major difference is that if something is missing, we can
add it
> > using the open-source xHarbour project.. If you don't have the desire to
do
> > so, then ask for what you need and see if someone adds it. If you can't
do
> > either of those, there is no point in bringing up this ill-perceived
> > shortcoming in xHarbour.
>
> Yes, very ill-perceived reactions from xHarbour.com
How? What are you talking about now? Again - is there a misunderstanding
because you haven't made your point in a clear fashion?
Get to the point, or drop the subject.
>
> A very long way.
>
> >>Expecially if the process is documented.
> >
> > What you are asking for is not something we are selling as a feature.
It is
> > part of the open-source xHarbour project. Either get involved in the
> > project, or drop the subject.
>
> I'm a potential commercial customer.
>
> Please have the gentleness to avoid trying to involve me into projects.
But what you are asking for something that xHarbour.com is not offering. We
are not out to educate you on compiler semantics. If you want to extend the
operation of the preprocessor, get involved in the xHarbour project, ask for
something specific, or DROP the subject.
>
> You can simply say (as you've done a few times): sorry, not available.
>
> [the discussed part here: documentation about the language-core.
> Estimated effort: 5 hours]
>
> >>And this already in pre-sales-documentation.
> >>
> >>The name "harbour" becomes his real sense.
> >>
> >>xHarbour ("...as a more aggressive alternative to the conservative style
> >>of development...") should provide this functionality.
> >>
> >>source of quote: http://www.xharbour.com/about_xharbour.php
> >
> > This statement is taken completely out of context.
>
> A statement raises expectations.
What are you expecting then?
>
> Different minds, different expectations
>
> >>>>>>This document would give any interested developer the ability to
> >>>>>>quickly evaluate the possibility of extending xHarbour with the
> >>>>>
> >> >>>>constructs needed.
> >>
> >>>Needed for what? You don't know what's missing yet!
> >>
> >>The "interested developer" knows the "constructs needed".
> >>
> >>I speak in general.
> >
> > Apparently not.
>
> of course.
>
> Just see the importance of this issue.
I do. This is something for the xHarbour project. It is not something that
xHarbour.com is offering.
>
> >
> > [...]
>
Jamie
> As could you. As I've stated - If you want something - just ask in a
> coherent fashion, and we'll try to get you whatever you think is missing.
> Along the way, we'll both learn something.
>
> Your requests _must_ be clear. I can't read between the lines to fugure
out
> what you want.
[...] ====>[...]
Or between the dots, square brackets and arrows as the case is here. <g>
[...]
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Ilias,
>
>
>> > You might want to ask yourself WHY is it, that so many different
>> > individuals care enough to WARN other people about you!
>>
>>[As i see, you join the off-topic discussion about my person]
>
> I don't think it's OT.
What you think is irrelevant.
Discussing my person in
comp.lang.clipper topic "[XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++"
is off-topic.
this is a simple fact.
>>I don't have to.
>
> Yes, it was only a suggestion.
[You really don't have to comment each line. There is an implicit
"because" connecting to the next lines.]
>>I left comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
>>
>>They simply miss to talk about me.
>
> I don't know, and don't care.
You care. That's why you suggest me to ask myself "WHY"?
> This I believe is OT.
Of course.
All my writing in this message is OT.
>> > It's especially ODD in the context of an NG where community members
>> > are so eager to help.
>>
>>i see.
>
> Good.
ok
>> > In the few years I've read this NG, I must have read thousands of
>> > messages, from hundreds of individuals, and yet I can NOT recall even
>> > one similar reaction, to anyone. I think it is very important
>> > information for you to consider.
>>
>>It is irrelevant to me.
>
> Why?
>
> Do you not agree that communication skills are critical to success?
so train them.
> Do you not agree that it's important to minimize friction with others?
so minimize it.
> Do you not agree that a CURE must begin with a DIAGNOSIS?
Don't know.
It's not SO critical that you use CAPITALS so OFTEN.
I don't think that you must talk about a CURE.
>>There's relevance for yourself.
>
> Yes.
so, why don't you simply communicate without friction?
>> > There is a common Israeli saying that might further explain what I
>> > suggest:
>> >
>> > "When more than person tell you that you are drunk - go to sleep!"
>>
>>Thus a group of lying persons can sent you to bed?
>
> The basic idea of that saying is, that we sometimes hear things that we
> don't like, but it arrives from *many* *different* individuals, it usually
> suggests that those negative ideas are NOT lies.
"usually"
The important word.
-
The other side:
Many, different individual sayed: She Is A Which.
> Is it possible you have a shortcoming that you are not aware off?
yes, or course.
> Did you even find ANY fault with yourself?
yes, of course.
> Did you EVER change your mind about anything in retrospect?
yes, of course.
LISP - an excercise for experts?
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3D722F2B.8010702%40pontos.net
>>funny!
>
> No, sad. :-(
yes, it's sad that you brought "funny" out of context.
It belongs to "...sent you to bed".
>>> P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
>>> intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly
>>>
>>> recommend:
>>>
>>>
>>> "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/002-0943277-830240
>>> 6?v=glance
>
>>I'm sure you've read it.
>
> Yes. I hope you are sincere.
?
>>And i'm sure you had success.
>
> It helped me understand some problems I had. I still have lots to learn
> about communication skills.
yes, i can confirm that.
respect individuality.
>>I prefere my way.
>
> This is the very problem.
Not for me.
>>I let people 'influence' themselves.
>
> Then this is NOT communication!
It is.
I isolate/extract facts, produce some interconnections.
Sometimes i derive conclusions, thus it's not so sterile.
But people 'influence' themselves.
As i do 'influence' myselve.
>>You understand the difference.
>
> No i don't see the point in engaging in such discussions without the desire
> to gain something clear and acceptable to both parties.
>
>>May i suggest you one 'book'
>>
>> "How To Serve Customers"
>
> You are just being childish. Life is not about being "getting even". If you
> really wanted to get even with me, you'd do better to be SINCERE.
Did you get that from this book?
I mean the use of "SINCERE".
> I did NOT offer the book to offend you.
What makes you think that i offer you the 'book' "How To Serve
Customers" to offend you?
It is my honest believing that you need this 'lesson'.
> I sincerely believe it can greatly help you understand WHY so many people
> seems to be HOSTILE toward you.
I understand why.
But they are irrelevant to me.
>>BTW: In the time you wrote this irrelevant [off-topic] message, you had
>>better answered those simple questions about C++ in this message:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
>
> As I said, I no longer see any value in that discussion - I despise
> redundancy.
In the given link, there is no redundancy.
There were three concrete questions.
> One of the common definitions of stupidity is:
>
> "Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting DIFFERENT results"
>
> IMO, we were set to do exactly that, go round and round saying the same
> things, over and over again. Since I have no idea of how I may change that,
> I gave up.
You talk much about 'sincere'.
Please be sincere and answer at least those 3 concrete and non
repetitive questions about C++, which have evolved during the discussion:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
The effort should be much less than this here.
> Ron
pe
Paul
"Jamie" <bubam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lR_bb.4479$H86.1...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Ron Pinkas
> Discussing my person in
>
> comp.lang.clipper topic "[XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++"
>
> is off-topic.
"What you think is irrelevant."
> > Do you not agree that communication skills are critical to success?
>
> so train them.
While I may have communication problems, they seem to dwarf in the presence
of the issues you seem to face. We were talking about what YOU can do to
overcome them. Switching the context like that, is an example of ONE of the
problems you seem to have with your communication style.
> > Do you not agree that it's important to minimize friction with others?
>
> so minimize it.
The questions was do YOU agree! The point is:
=> Are YOU interested in AVOIDING such public conflicts as you seem to have?
> > Do you not agree that a CURE must begin with a DIAGNOSIS?
>
> Don't know.
=> Clarification: Can a problem be solved without being defined first?
> It's not SO critical that you use CAPITALS so OFTEN.
>
> I don't think that you must talk about a CURE.
"What you think is irrelevant."
> so, why don't you simply communicate without friction?
The issue is why do YOU seem to have so MUCH friction that is MORE than the
sum of all the rest of the readers COMBINED!
=> Solution: Try to ask yourself WHY?
> >>Thus a group of lying persons can sent you to bed?
> >
> > The basic idea of that saying is, that we sometimes hear things that we
> > don't like, but it arrives from *many* *different* individuals, it
usually
> > suggests that those negative ideas are NOT lies.
>
> "usually"
>
> The important word.
Wise people UNDERSTAND the VALUE the IMPLICATIONS of this important word.
> The other side:
>
> Many, different individual sayed: She Is A Which.
Then "she" would be WISE to avoid that public, or at least avoid any
behavior that might substantiate that claim!
> > Is it possible you have a shortcoming that you are not aware off?
>
> yes, or course.
>
> > Did you even find ANY fault with yourself?
>
> yes, of course.
>
> > Did you EVER change your mind about anything in retrospect?
>
> yes, of course.
Then this should make it easier for you to understand that you might very
well be WRONG again. Very possibly you may only learn of this mistake LATER,
and since so many different individuals tend to think that, it is very
probably, very true!
> LISP - an excercise for experts?
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3D722F2B.8010702%40pontos.net
Good, I propose a similar apology here ("group of liars", "What you think is
irrelevant.") and many other similar offenses which serve no purpose other
then explaining the kind of hostility you seem to attract.
> >>funny!
> >
> > No, sad. :-(
>
> yes, it's sad that you brought "funny" out of context.
I did NOT delete a single letter you wrote, and did NOT change the ORDER
neither => I did NOT bring "funny" out of context!
> It belongs to "...sent you to bed".
It belongs EXACTLY where it was in your message.
> >>> P.S. It may very well be that your intentions are pure, and you never
> >>> intended to annoy, or offend anyone. In such case I'd strongly
> >>>
> >>> recommend:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
> >>>
> >>>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/002-0943277-830240
> >>> 6?v=glance
> >
> >>I'm sure you've read it.
> >
> > Yes. I hope you are sincere.
>
> ?
=> Sincere != Cynical
> >>And i'm sure you had success.
> >
> > It helped me understand some problems I had. I still have lots to learn
> > about communication skills.
>
> yes, i can confirm that.
=> Sincere != Cynical
> respect individuality.
I try.
[maybe I now get "it's not enough."]
> >>I prefere my way.
> >
> > This is the very problem.
>
> Not for me.
Yes for you!
=> Rational: Many people feel like discussing YOUR personality is ON TOPIC
=> Question: WHY?
=> Answer: Ilias is DIFFERENT.
=> Answer: Ilias is ANNOYING
=> Conclusion: Ilias has a problem!
> >>I let people 'influence' themselves.
> >
> > Then this is NOT communication!
>
> It is.
"What you think is irrelevant."
=>
=>
!!
> I isolate/extract facts, produce some interconnections.
"What you think is irrelevant."
=> Rational: MAJORITY of people don't want to hear what you think!
> Sometimes i derive conclusions, thus it's not so sterile.
"You conclusions are faulty!"
> But people 'influence' themselves.
Majority determines POSITION of individual in the public.
> As i do 'influence' myselve.
That's your PROBLEM!
> >>You understand the difference.
> >
> > No i don't see the point in engaging in such discussions without the
desire
> > to gain something clear and acceptable to both parties.
> >
> >>May i suggest you one 'book'
> >>
> >> "How To Serve Customers"
> >
> > You are just being childish. Life is not about being "getting even". If
you
> > really wanted to get even with me, you'd do better to be SINCERE.
>
> Did you get that from this book?
>
> I mean the use of "SINCERE".
Yes.
> > I did NOT offer the book to offend you.
>
> What makes you think that i offer you the 'book' "How To Serve
> Customers" to offend you?
What is the Name of the author? What is the ISBN? Who is the publisher?
> It is my honest believing that you need this 'lesson'.
"What you think is irrelevant."
=> Rationale: Someone that is UNABLE to earn RESPECT from his peers, is NOT
QUALIFIED to GIVE ADVICE to his peers!
> > I sincerely believe it can greatly help you understand WHY so many
people
> > seems to be HOSTILE toward you.
>
> I understand why.
What did you understand?
> But they are irrelevant to me.
"What you think is irrelevant."
> >>BTW: In the time you wrote this irrelevant [off-topic] message, you had
> >>better answered those simple questions about C++ in this message:
> >>
> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
> >
> > As I said, I no longer see any value in that discussion - I despise
> > redundancy.
>
> In the given link, there is no redundancy.
Those questions [in different wording] have been answered at least TWICE
already.
> There were three concrete questions.
What you consider "concrete" I find very fluid.
> > One of the common definitions of stupidity is:
> >
> > "Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting DIFFERENT
results"
> >
> > IMO, we were set to do exactly that, go round and round saying the same
> > things, over and over again. Since I have no idea of how I may change
that,
> > I gave up.
>
> You talk much about 'sincere'.
You are not enough sincere.
> Please be sincere and answer at least those 3 concrete and non
> repetitive questions about C++, which have evolved during the discussion:
"What you think is irrelevant."
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F6D507D...@abeon.com
>
> The effort should be much less than this here.
Effort is NOT my concern.
Ron
Gary Stark
Jamie wrote:
Or the circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back of each one explaining
exactly what it is.
I think we need to move Billy to the Group W bench.
Or should that be the Group Dubbya bench these days ?
<g>
pe
news:3F70B396...@RedbacksWeb.com...
> Jamie,
>
> Jamie wrote:
>
>
> Or the circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back of each one
explaining
> exactly what it is.
>
> I think we need to move Billy to the Group W bench.
>
> Or should that be the Group Dubbya bench these days ?
<G>
>
> <g>
>
You _can_ get anything you want as long as everyone understands that there
may have been a possibly implied question there amongst the pile by the
side of the road.
Paul
Gary Stark
> >
> > Or the circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back of each one
> explaining
> > exactly what it is.
> >
> > I think we need to move Billy to the Group W bench.
> >
> > Or should that be the Group Dubbya bench these days ?
>
> <G>
> >
> > <g>
> >
>
> You _can_ get anything you want as long as everyone understands that there
> may have been a possibly implied question there amongst the pile by the
> side of the road.
>
And it's far better to have just the one big pile rather than two smaller
ones.
Which raises another issue: do we now start to refer to Billy's meanderings
(they're certainly not coherent or intelligble postings) as some form of
usenet roadkill?
Ron Pinkas
> Which raises another issue: do we now start to refer to Billy's
meanderings
> (they're certainly not coherent or intelligble postings) as some form of
> usenet roadkill?
My advice is to to not use any kind of degrading remarks, toward anyone.
Otherwise we just lower our standrads instead of extending help to such
individuals.
I agree that sometimes we are forced to adapt our style to that of a given
individual, but we must be very careful to restrict that to minimum, and
always in strong context.
I certainly understand the frustration, especially since you seem to have
more extensive history with that individual, but I still think there must be
better ways to defuse it.
Best regards, :-)
Ron
Gary Stark
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Hello Gary,
>
> > Which raises another issue: do we now start to refer to Billy's
> meanderings
> > (they're certainly not coherent or intelligble postings) as some form of
> > usenet roadkill?
>
> My advice is to to not use any kind of degrading remarks, toward anyone.
> Otherwise we just lower our standrads instead of extending help to such
> individuals.
I have a very low threshold for the tolerance of fools.
Very low. :)
Having said that, under most (normal) situations, I would agree: if you can't
say something nice about someone, then it's better to just not say anything at
all.
However, Billy doesn't adhere to any known standards at all.
He has done, and by all accounts will continue to, abuse and insult all and
sundry. If you are good hearted enough to try to offer him the hand of
friendship or help, he'll just grab your hand and rip your bloody arms orf!
> I agree that sometimes we are forced to adapt our style to that of a given
> individual, but we must be very careful to restrict that to minimum, and
> always in strong context.
I couldn't agree more.
> I certainly understand the frustration, especially since you seem to have
> more extensive history with that individual, but I still think there must be
> better ways to defuse it.
We've tried ignoring him.
It didn't work.
He can be very persistant, and you should consider yourself fortunate that he
appears to be indicating that he's going to look elsewhere for his kicks.
As you so eruditely pointed out in one of your postings, when there's a
situation where just the one person has so many problems with everyone else in
the given environment, the problem must (logically) lie with that one person. I
too have been hanging around newsgroups and bulletin boards for a long, long
time, and I have never, ever, seen an individual with the signal to noise ratio
that Billy has.
> Best regards, :-)
>
And to you.