have you every used xbase++
bla...@greenmail.net
Has anyone actually used xBase++?
There have been questions and lots of comments but little information here
about xBase++.
ZAC has a flier that makes it sound like the answer to a maiden's prayer.
1. Will it really port Summer '87 applications to Window's 95 applications?
2. Will it convert a stand alone desk top Clipper application to a stand alone
Windows application?
I have some Summer '87 applications that use Flipper graphics. How does
xBase++ handle graphics?
Thanks for your observations and insight.
Brian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian J. Larkin
1301 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-3205
Permanent MailTo:bjla...@juno.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Dave Pearson
> Has anyone actually used xBase++?
I've had a "play" with it. When I say "play", I mean more than a "lets have
a look" but less than a "lets do something serious with it".
> There have been questions and lots of comments but little information here
> about xBase++.
If you've used Class(y) in your apps and you want to port to Xbase++ you
might want to look at my Xbase++ page (see .sig). You should also pop over
to:
which holds an Xbase++ message board.
> ZAC has a flier that makes it sound like the answer to a maiden's prayer.
>
> 1. Will it really port Summer '87 applications to Window's 95
> applications?
Window's 95 *console* *mode* application, yes, it probably would.
> 2. Will it convert a stand alone desk top Clipper application to a stand alone
> Windows application?
Stand alone *console* *mode* Windows application. Yes, it will.
In both cases, if you want GUI, *you* need to do the "convert".
> I have some Summer '87 applications that use Flipper graphics. How does
> xBase++ handle graphics?
Reasonably well from what I've read of the manual. Can't speak from
experience.
[alt.comp.databases.xbase++ added to newsgroups line]
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Bob Williams
Brian:
We have been working with Xbase++ for months now because we have to
convert 11 5.2e apps to Windows and as of this date, do not have ONE app
converted. As with any new product, we expected to have bugs, but did
not expect the lack of response to our reported problems from their
technical support staff.
For instance, we cannot get any information as to when the next version
will be released that supposedly will correct even some of the reported
problems.
Bob Williams
President
KRS Enterprises, Inc.
bla...@greenmail.net wrote:
>
> Has anyone actually used xBase++?
>
> There have been questions and lots of comments but little information here
> about xBase++.
>
> ZAC has a flier that makes it sound like the answer to a maiden's prayer.
>
> 1. Will it really port Summer '87 applications to Window's 95 applications?
> 2. Will it convert a stand alone desk top Clipper application to a stand alone
> Windows application?
>
> I have some Summer '87 applications that use Flipper graphics. How does
> xBase++ handle graphics?
>
Antonio Linares
Bob,
I seriously recommend you to review FiveWin: The CA-Clipper for Windows
Library. I asure you you would have your 11 apps smoothly running in Windows
by now. We have assisted hundreds of customers to succesfully port their
apps from MsDos to Windows.
You may download a free fully functional FiveWin version at www.fivetech.com
or www.ozs.com. You may also reach from there our free news and tech server
forums where you will find more than one thousand msgs that will let you to
speed up your FiveWin learning. Normally we take no longer than 24 hours to
answer all tech questions.
Also, you may find many people that will help you to start your MsDos to
Windows developments. We asure you a record time and a total satisfaction on
your projects.
regards,
Antonio Linares
www.fivetech.com
www.ozs.com
Patrick M
>I seriously recommend you to review FiveWin: I asure you you would have
your 11 >apps smoothly running in Windows by now. We have assisted hundreds
of >customers to succesfully port their apps from MsDos to Windows.
I fully agree to this! We moved our Main Dos Clipper app to Windows, ans it
runs GREAT thanks to FiveWin.
Bob, you have to check it out. What's more, there is a FiveWin++ in the
make!
32 bits and 16 bits withe THE SAME source code!
My 2 cents...
Patrick Mast
http://www.winfakt.com
Sean Webb
On 5/10/98 10:18AM, in message <6j3nn9$r2m$1...@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>,
"Antonio Linares" <alin...@sp-editores.es> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I seriously recommend you to review FiveWin: The CA-Clipper for Windows
> Library.
I wish you would subsitute 'the' for 'a'
eg 'A CA Clipper for windows Library' since it is neither the first , nor the only
library that enables the creation of windows executables.
The original and IMHO more stable library as you know can be found at
clip-4-win.com
--
Sean Webb,Spyder Computing
Security , Risk Management , Fire & Rescue Database Systems
Marina Booking Systems, POS developments,
Import/Export and Freight Forwarding Systems
Personal Home Page: http://users.iafrica.com/s/sp/spwebb
Al Acker
The 3 best places to get info on Xbase++ are:
www.alaska-software.com
www.afaonline.com (Xbase++ conference)
Compuserve: GO ALASKA
To sum up your questions.... Xbase++ is a 32bit compiler... it's NOT a
"converter". Yes it produces 32bit native Windows and OS/2 apps using
your Clipper code, but without any change in source code.... you'll
end up with a 32bit console (character based) app. There are GUI
classes contained in Xbase++ that produce native GUI apps...but you'll
have to do some recoding. Also there are products like eXPress++ that
work with Xbase++ that will "convert" your @say code to full GUI code.
Cheers,
Al
Gordon Hamm
>32 bits and 16 bits withe THE SAME source code!
>
When did fivewin become 32 bit ? Is there a new release I am not aware of ??
Gordon
Knut Fasteng
On Sun, 10 May 98 23:19:17 GMT, Sean Webb <spw...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/98 10:18AM, in message <6j3nn9$r2m$1...@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>,
>"Antonio Linares" <alin...@sp-editores.es> wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I seriously recommend you to review FiveWin: The CA-Clipper for Windows
>> Library.
>
>I wish you would subsitute 'the' for 'a'
>eg 'A CA Clipper for windows Library' since it is neither the first , nor the only
>library that enables the creation of windows executables.
>
>The original and IMHO more stable library as you know can be found at
>clip-4-win.com
I agree that clip-4-win is very stable and it seems to have
all the window api within easy reach.
You may both program windows like it was originaly intended
- the way c-programers do - and you have easy to use
object technology.
I like to play with it by copying programs from Charles Petzolds
book like I have done with VO.
Its indeed a very good library for converting clipper into
windows. You may even use inkey(). You get more than
800 pages of writen material describing use of clip-4-win.
This said - fivewin 1.95 is something different.
I have heard that Linares have made almost
a complete rewrite of the fivewin 16 bits so that the same
code shall perform both in clipper and xbase++
Borland 5.0 is used for the compiling c instead of
borland 3.1 as before. I have borland 4.5 and it performs
as borland 5.0
16 bits fivewin have profited from this by geting a Window 95
look 苔nd the visual IDE yes - it looks like delphi and
and delphi is the industry standard at the moment.
I may be mistaken - but now I feel I have gotten all the
source code. I missed some code from the event handling before
but this is included now.
The debuger sourcecode - the visual IDE source code
and a tremendous amount of examples of all the ways you
may need to use fivewin.
It is an entire CD filled up. You might add the 4-win there
without 4-win being much noticed among all the goodies.
While evrything in clip-4-win is dated 1995 or earlier its
obvious that the fivewin team is heavy at work now.
clip-4-win has probably corrected the few faults
that might have been in their libraries since then.
(clip-4-win is probably also at work - and will appear
in 32-bits - as they promised)
Now that I know a little of both clip-4-win and fivewin
I find them both up to a high standard.
I will use both of them. At the moment fivewin
in my opinion is a clear winner for productivity
but I can easely see that some - like yourself
prefear clip-4-win.
Cheers and thanks for giving me hints as to look at clip-4-win
I am paying you back now I believe - by pointing at the new fivewin.
The most important thing is that both clip-4-win and fivewin
may be linked by Blinker and I have heard that so will
xbase++ (by blinker 5.0)
Xbase++ + Fivewin might start competing with Delphi.
That will be a fight betweeen the languages Pascal and Clipper.
Here personal preference play a major role.
Also Microsoft or whatever it is - that make it so difficult
to sell products made in Delphi.
Borland being taken over by an other firm recently etc. does
not help Delphi's image.
The good name Clipper made for it self in the DOS world
may be forgotten if the word "Clipper for windows" is
not used.
My advice at present to move old Clipper code is:
use FIVEWIN - not a doubt in my mind.
(you may also use CLIP-4-WIN or VO 2.0 (soon to be VO 2.5))
Any other choise will mean total rewrite. Rewrite to Pascal
may force a later rewrite to C++ if C++builder takes the
market from Delphi - Pascal lost battle to c++ before)
Knut
Rudy Spoerer
Thanks for your note. I Have received the flier from ZAC and at $ 439.00 per copy
would expect that there may be some headaches certainly do not expect to see apps
taking months to port ..
I have a copy of the CA Visual objects and its been sitting on the shelf for almost
a year. The manuals are the pitts and when I can't make somthing work I don't know
if it's me or the darn program ....
Ill be interested to hear more coments on Xbase as time drags on ..
Rudy Spoerer
Bob Williams wrote:
> Brian:
> We have been working with Xbase++ for months now because we have to
> convert 11 5.2e apps to Windows and as of this date, do not have ONE app
> converted. As with any new product, we expected to have bugs, but did
> not expect the lack of response to our reported problems from their
> technical support staff.
> For instance, we cannot get any information as to when the next version
> will be released that supposedly will correct even some of the reported
> problems.
> Bob Williams
> President
> KRS Enterprises, Inc.
>
Knut Fasteng
To this I feel it is right to elaborate some.
An importent thing with xbase++ 1.1 is that it may read
32bits .dll so with 32bits clipper and what you may
achieve with functions from .dll you gain quite a lot.
If I ever have said what I previously meant - that Microsoft
crippeled 16 bitt to force evrybody to convert to 32 bits
- I have long (4 months ) changed my opinion in this respect.
My 16 bit fw195 Fivewin reads 32 bits .dll as well as 16 bits dll.
Come time past middle june - my window 95 customers will
have RICH editor as part of my application.
I offer this with no extra cost to my customers..
Treeview expolorer like interface I have allready given
both 16 bit and 32 bit customer - the 32 being somewhat nicer
in appearence.
(32 bits here means window 95 and NT customers)
Having all the source code for fivewin - I read it and I feel
its my source code. I dont like getting updates if something
does not work as I want it - i make the updates myself - since
the code is with all the necessary comments and written in the
style that have also become my style of code writing.
Cheers from the top of the world
Mike Taylor
Knut Fasteng wrote:
>
>(snip)
> Xbase++ + Fivewin might start competing with Delphi.
>
> That will be a fight betweeen the languages Pascal and Clipper.
> Here personal preference play a major role.
> Also Microsoft or whatever it is - that make it so difficult
> to sell products made in Delphi.
> Borland being taken over by an other firm recently etc. does
> not help Delphi's image.
>
new direction: More than a compiler company. I think the worst part
about it is this type of confusion...
Knut Fasteng
It was not my intention to add to confusion.
I have the highest respect for Borland and have been continuously
bying and updating all their products although its years
since I did something real serious with these excelent products.
Playing around with the software and bying all the books
describing use of this software is necessety for my firm
to be continiously opdated with what is possible and easy
with the best products of our industry.
Although there is many good books describing use of Clipper
and VO - fivewin is described in one 200 pages book and
clip-4-win in an 800 pages book. So we have to suply our
knowlege with books from Delphi. Fivewin seems recently
to move in the Delphi direction.
Fortunatly up to now I have been able to translate ideas
from the Delphi
code into Fivewin or VO products since Window API
is such dominating part of all this products.
Both Delphi and Fivewin/clip-4-win generously give access to source
code of the construction of the object interface to Windows API,
this make it possible to greatly profit from bying Delphi
products although writing code in clipper.
While Fivewin use c to interface Window api for speed of performance,
clip-4-win even use only clipper for this interface - the reduction
in speed being not notisable on my PC. So clip-4-win is all
clipper (I might be a little wrong here but it is generaly true)
I will modestly claim: This goes to prove what a wonderful
language clipper is.
Since the visual interface is almost the same for programers
in Delphi,Borland c++ and Visual Basic and VO - I am
glad that vi by FW 1.95 also got it in Fivewin.
Most of the idea behind this interface originated in my opinion
with Visual Basic. The best overall design of this interface today
is beyound doubt in Delphi/C++ Builder.
The confusion I share with others are caused by this sudden
name change that occured at the Borland web.
Yesterday to my astonishment - I read for the first time
that it was just a name change.
I put it mildly when I now say that the Delphi community
disliked this change of name. And whats more - they were
not at all prepeared with any information in advance.
So I repeat again - this type of marketing is a shame.
It does nothing to improve the industrie confidence in
Delphi products. Time might prove me wrong - and this I hope.
Cheers
Knut
Dave Pearson
On 12 May 1998 08:30:48 GMT, Knut Fasteng <kn...@kfaserv1.kfdata.no> wrote:
> The confusion I share with others are caused by this sudden name change
> that occured at the Borland web. Yesterday to my astonishment - I read
> for the first time that it was just a name change.
I'm a little confused as to how anyone could have thought that it was
anything more than a name change. They day after the change I checked out
http://www.borland.com/, this had a link to the new site, under the new
name, and there were a couple of pages about the name change and why it
happened. I saw nothing that could have made anyone think that Borland had
been purchased by another company (but there were details about the fact
that Borland had *purchased* another company).
> So I repeat again - this type of marketing is a shame. It does nothing to
> improve the industrie confidence in Delphi products. Time might prove me
> wrong - and this I hope.
I find this line of thinking interesting and confusing. Why should a name
change in a tool vendor make any difference to your customer's confidence in
the products you produce? I don't recall any customers loosing confidence in
the software I wrote when Nantucket were purchased by CA.
Sean Webb
On 5/12/98 11:22AM, in message
<slrn6lg56f.hs...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>, Dave Pearson
<davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I find this line of thinking interesting and confusing. Why should a name
> change in a tool vendor make any difference to your customer's confidence in
> the products you produce? I don't recall any customers loosing confidence in
> the software I wrote when Nantucket were purchased by CA.
>
It shouldn't be the client that is bothered , it should be the software supplier.
Companies _usually_ change names for one of three reasons
1) They've been bought out by someone else.
2) They are in deep sh*t
3) Some dumb assed over paid marketing person has managed to bullshit them
that by changing their name the public will perceive them better.
IMHO Borlands name change is a combination of 2) & 3) above.
--
Patrick M
>My 16 bit fw195 Fivewin reads 32 bits .dll as well as 16 bits dll.
>Come time past middle june - my window 95 customers will
>have RICH editor as part of my application.
>I offer this with no extra cost to my customers..
What do you use for the RICH editor?
regards,
patrick
Dave Pearson
On Tue, 12 May 98 16:37:05 GMT, Sean Webb <spw...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> It shouldn't be the client that is bothered , it should be the software
> supplier. Companies _usually_ change names for one of three reasons
>
> 1) They've been bought out by someone else.
>
> 2) They are in deep sh*t
>
> 3) Some dumb assed over paid marketing person has managed to bullshit them
> that by changing their name the public will perceive them better.
>
> IMHO Borlands name change is a combination of 2) & 3) above.
Agreed.
Phil McGuinness
2) and 3) -- Right on the money Sean.....
Delhi might be a great product.. but you need
a lot more than that to stay in business today!
Phil - Sherlock SOftware - Australia
--------------- -
Sean Webb wrote in message ...
>On 5/12/98 11:22AM, in message
><slrn6lg56f.hs...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>, Dave Pearson
><davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I find this line of thinking interesting and confusing. Why should a name
>> change in a tool vendor make any difference to your customer's confidence
in
>> the products you produce? I don't recall any customers loosing confidence
in
>> the software I wrote when Nantucket were purchased by CA.
>>
>
>It shouldn't be the client that is bothered , it should be the software
supplier.
>Companies _usually_ change names for one of three reasons
>
>1) They've been bought out by someone else.
>
>2) They are in deep sh*t
>
>3) Some dumb assed over paid marketing person has managed to bullshit them
> that by changing their name the public will perceive them better.
>
>IMHO Borlands name change is a combination of 2) & 3) above.
>
Knut Fasteng
On Tue, 12 May 1998 20:48:09 +0200, Patrick M
<GeenSpam...@winfakt.comGeenSpam> wrote:
>>My 16 bit fw195 Fivewin reads 32 bits .dll as well as 16 bits dll.
>>Come time past middle june - my window 95 customers will
>>have RICH editor as part of my application.
>>I offer this with no extra cost to my customers..
>
>
>regards,
>patrick
I have not actualy done it yet - but I got the idea from the
fivewin conferense. The Rich editor is built in a delphi 2.0
dll (32 bit) and this .dll is called from fivewin 1.95. (16bit)
From my delphi books I hope to have source code how to build a rich
editor on a CD.
I need being able to use different types of fonts and colour
- also no limit to size.
Its also important that applications have a window 95 look
and that it does not take much time to get it.
So I may deliver without extra cost to the customers.
I live in an competive world here in Norway
and must follow new "fashions".
This is just a little part in a large clipper application.
Visual appearanse we can not neglect.
It has to appeal to the
buyer while price is set by the market
competion.
In unix - thanks heaven - this demand has not been so
overvelming but its probably just half a year away,
and I have nothing to offer.
cheers
Knut
>
>
Ross Chappell
Brian...
I use both Xbase++ and VO. Both are excellent products, but somewhat orient
to different markets.
I think XBase++'s strength is in it's ability to relatively easily port
existing legacy code and it's similarity to CA-Clipper. If you're a
reasonable qualified CA-Clipper programmer then you can pick up XBase++
relatively quickly.
Don't expect, though, that your program will instantly look like a windows
program. It won't. It will look like a DOS program running in an MS/Windows
DOS box. Once you've got it up and running though, you can start to replace
portions of the user interface to give the application a true MS/Windows
look and feel.
Hope this helps.
Ross
www.electricpeople.com
www.epidirect.com
bla...@greenmail.net wrote in message <6j274f$epe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Al Acker
On Tue, 12 May 98 16:37:05 GMT, spw...@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>On 5/12/98 11:22AM, in message
><slrn6lg56f.hs...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>, Dave Pearson
><davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I find this line of thinking interesting and confusing. Why should a name
>> change in a tool vendor make any difference to your customer's confidence in
>> the products you produce? I don't recall any customers loosing confidence in
>> the software I wrote when Nantucket were purchased by CA.
>>
>
>It shouldn't be the client that is bothered , it should be the software supplier.
>Companies _usually_ change names for one of three reasons
>
>1) They've been bought out by someone else.
>
>2) They are in deep sh*t
>
>3) Some dumb assed over paid marketing person has managed to bullshit them
> that by changing their name the public will perceive them better.
>
>IMHO Borlands name change is a combination of 2) & 3) above.
I agree with you here but there may be something with number one also.
You don't need to be "bought out" to have a change in "control" You
could have someone come in...buy up a good hunk of stock and "presto",
you have someone new in control. Most of the time this happens when a
company is in (see number 2).
Al