ABC vs CLARION
den...@spry.com
a lot more messages about "I am having a hard time with ABC" than I do
"ABC is GREAT!!!"
-Dennis
Robert Paresi
larger code, longer to open GLOBAL EMBEDS, and you seem to have more control
in the 2003 templates. In addition, if you are training people, I think
you'll find the 2003 templates more user friendly. The only think I've
missed over using ABC is the Edit In Place which in my opinion isn't all
that great and useful.
--
---
Robert Paresi
InnQuest Software
http://www.innquest.com
[using Outlook Express 4.01 and Clarion 4 build BN]
den...@spry.com wrote in message <35f6fca6...@news.spry.com>...
Bruce Barrington
Other than the fact that ABC applications compile a lot faster, generate
much less code, and give you a lot more control, I think you have it about
right <g>. I think you need to understand a technology before you evaluate
it.
Bruce Barrington
TopSpeed Corporation
Robert Paresi wrote in message <6t8g43$cgc$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
Craig E Ransom
> I see
> a lot more messages about "I am having a hard time with ABC" than I do
> "ABC is GREAT!!!"
>
I think this is just that people who post here are looking for solutions
to perceived problems, not as TS cheerleaders!
So, of course your will see more "I'm having problems" messages than "I
really like ABC" messages.
-- Craig (The Data Ferret)
Using Virtual Access 4.02 build 244 (32-bit) in Win95
"Do not meddle in the affairs of FERRETS,
for THEY are FEISTY, and LIKE TO NIP
THOSE WHO ANNOY THEM!"
Robert Paresi
Select New on each, and don't select any files, fields, procedures. Just
create the application with a simple frame.
2003 compile time, 6 seconds, size 9K
ABC compile time, 14 seconds, size 35K
I tried converting 4 DLL's from a very large application and the compile
time was 4 times as long and the total size of the four DLL's were larger.
In addition, I did a benchmark on a PROCESS against a 500,000 (even)
database with three keys. All I did was run the process over it without
updating the records. (meaning, no embeds in both applications) - the 2003
application ran FIRST and ran quicker through the records than the ABC
application which ran second, which should be the other way around because
of cache.
If you come up with different findings, let's continue the dialog.
Otherwise, I'll keep giving my "personal opinions" of ABC. :-) You can
take them for what they are worth.
Bruce Barrington wrote in message <35f7e...@tsnews.clarion.com>...
>Robert,
>
>Other than the fact that ABC applications compile a lot faster, generate
>much less code, and give you a lot more control, I think you have it about
>right <g>. I think you need to understand a technology before you evaluate
>it.
>
>Bruce Barrington
>TopSpeed Corporation
>
>
>Robert Paresi wrote in message <6t8g43$cgc$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
>>I personally do not like ABC because it takes more time to compile, makes
>>larger code, longer to open GLOBAL EMBEDS, and you seem to have more
>control
>>in the 2003 templates. In addition, if you are training people, I think
>>you'll find the 2003 templates more user friendly. The only think I've
>>missed over using ABC is the Edit In Place which in my opinion isn't all
>>that great and useful.
>>
>>--
>>---
>>Robert Paresi
>>InnQuest Software
>>http://www.innquest.com
>>[using Outlook Express 4.01 and Clarion 4 build BN]
>>
>>
>>den...@spry.com wrote in message <35f6fca6...@news.spry.com>...
>>>What are the advantages of ABC templates vs Clarion templates? I see
>>>a lot more messages about "I am having a hard time with ABC" than I do
>>>"ABC is GREAT!!!"
>>>-Dennis
>>
>>
>
>
Arnor Baldvinsson
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:18:42 -0400, "Robert Paresi"
<robe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I personally do not like ABC because it takes more time to compile, makes
>larger code, longer to open GLOBAL EMBEDS, and you seem to have more control
>in the 2003 templates. In addition, if you are training people, I think
Hmm... Sure the embeds take longer to open... But I think you have
got it backwards on the other points;) The generated code is an order
of magnitude less and therefor it compiles faster.
Best regards,
Arnor Baldvinsson
[Team Topspeed - Internet Connect]
Allerup Edb
Denmark
http://www.icetips.com (http://199.34.26.90)
UIN nr.: 2428601
Bruce Barrington
I knew exactly how you came to your conclusions--and why your conclusions
are completely wrong. First of all, you are adding library compilation time
to your ABC timings. This only happens the first time you compile an
application after installing Clarion (for each memory model). Secondly, the
first ABC procedure for any given type is bigger than its corresponding
Clarion procedure because of the one-time cost of the ABC library.
Subsequent ABC procedure instances are almost free.
Just look at the generated code in the two applications. Compile time is
(roughly) proportional to source code size. To understand the vastly
superior control provided by the ABC templates, thumb through the
Application Handbook then tell me how to do that stuff from a Clarion embed.
Bruce Barrington
TopSpeed Corporation
sma...@bmicos.com
den...@spry.com wrote:
> What are the advantages of ABC templates vs Clarion templates? I see
> a lot more messages about "I am having a hard time with ABC" than I do
> "ABC is GREAT!!!"
> -Dennis
>
The reason you don't see a lot of "ABC is GREAT!!!" is twofold: 1) Whether
you like to admit it or not, most people spend more time complaining than
they do praising (wish it weren't so...but it is) 2) It takes time to switch
from a procedural paradigm to an OOP one
To answer your question though, My ABC apps have more flexibility and are a
lot cleaner. They contain substantially less code and are easier to modify.
I know that this is not specific but it would take too long for me to go bit
by bit.
Kindest Regards,
Shawn Mason
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jack Toering
templates more user friendly. <
My 2 cents. Note there is no Topspeed after my name. Neither is there
any other association. I would say that I understand this perception. I'm
nobodies buddy, and Topspeed doesn't always like what I have to say. WIth
C4 I would agree with you. It is evident that pouring OOP into Clarion has
required more than one release. The peripheral pieces were not up to the
massive change. The embed system especially was a major nuisance. The
drivers went through big changes at the same time, to where you couldn't buy
a record at times.
A word of encouragement. C5 beta is better than anything you've
programmed in in CW. You will like the embeds better than 2.003. Remember
in 2.003, you have these long strings of "Generated code" embeds, the same
for "After Generated Code", and then "Other". In C5, they are all in one
place. Before and after are simply separated by call to parent. You can
move them with arrow keys, and you needn't be concerned with priority
numbers. Furthermore, calls to other classes show in the embeds in C5 as
opposed to C4. Thus, from the embeds, there are many embeds inside of INIT
and KILL. (Such as when the files are opened.) There is no before opening
files or after opening files, but there is an opening files embed. You can
set your code on either side of the line. If you want to see surrounding
code, just hit the source button, and it will take you right to that spot in
the code. Furthurmore, the field select box stays with you. If you try C5,
you won't have C4 or C2. Furthermore, there are those little report buttons
where you can push a button and print just that record from a browse, or
just the records of the browse using the same sort and filter w/o any
coding. How about a derive in the dictionary where all of your phone
numbers, address fields, etc.. are exactly the same. Not a LIKE() mind you,
but also the attributes. They can be kept linked or one time. Try it once
with the understanding that you are going to send it back. I'll bet you
can't. Worse yet, there are fewer bugs in C5 beta than in either CW2 or
CW4.
If you're comming to DEVCON, look me up. I'll talk OOP without the
Cows, Cats, and Chickens. It's terribly simple when you leave them out of
it. It will be so logical, that you won't even think about writing a class
any more. It will be second nature. You'll write them all the time. Their
hardly more work than an embed, and they pay for themselves on the first
.app.
Jack
PS: This is comming from a guy who, if you check the Compuserver threads,
had lots of strong words for Topspeed earlier this year about C4 with
concerns similar to yours. Not well received highly candid remarks about
the embeds, bugs, and productivity. I'm saying that C5 has more friendly
embeds, fewer bugs, and greater productivity by far, than CW 2.0. They had
to earn what I'm saying here.
Arnor Baldvinsson
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:57:04 -0400, "Jack Toering"
<71045...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>programmed in in CW. You will like the embeds better than 2.003. Remember
>in 2.003, you have these long strings of "Generated code" embeds, the same
>for "After Generated Code", and then "Other". In C5, they are all in one
In addition in C5, with a click on a button while in the embed tree
you can toggle if you want to see the Clarion embeds or not if you get
withdrawal symptoms;)