[C3] - Clipper Compatilbe Compiler
ilias
https://www.c3compiler.com/En/Index.htm
Not open source, but seems to have a gui ready.
From reading around in the site, it looks clear like it's not the
category of e.g. xbase++.
But in pricing, too: 100 Euro, electronic version.
-
does anyone know:
In which language is C3 written?
can i extend C3?
if yes, in which language?
can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX or other components with C3?
Is there any migration-guide available?
Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with C3 (which limitations)?
Can i compile xHarbour source-code with C3 (which limitations)?
Can i compile xBase++r source-code with C3 (which limitations)?
ilias
Jon Mayhem
valusoft
wrote:
>Fuck your mother down ....
Jon,
Whatever your previous experience with Ilias may be , please do not
use that language here in the c.l.c. It just takes you down a level or
three.
Regards,
Ross McKenzie
ValuSoft
Melbourne Australia
Regards,
Ross McKenzie
ValuSoft
Melbourne Australia
Jon Mayhem
Thanks for reminding me and my apologies.
BTW, how is Ray ? Long time no hear him.
Hope everything is goin' well.
Best regards.
Jon
valusoft
wrote:
>Ross,
>
>Thanks for reminding me and my apologies.
>BTW, how is Ray ? Long time no hear him.
>Hope everything is goin' well.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Jon
Jon,
I have been preoccupied with my daughter's wedding arrangements up
until last weekend. Went over and saw Ray on Monday. He is remodelling
his kitchen himself and you cannot believe the mess he is living in
(Yes Ray a mess! Even worse than your computer rooms). Cupboards and
contents moved into the lounge room and new appliances all over the
place. I am planning on taking my wife to see it the next time she
suggests that we remodel <g>.
tnhoe
Why not telling us what you trying to do and let others suggest you the
appropiate tools according to out experience ?
It's better than you ask around about every tool.
There is no perfect tool.
Regards
Hoe
ilias
If you want to help me, please respect the way i retriev information.
You can assist me by simply giving the answers that you know, if
possible with references to usenet / internet.
Thank you.
> Regards
> Hoe
ilias
> This one is raised in spain:
>
> https://www.c3compiler.com/En/Index.htm
>
> Not open source, but seems to have a gui ready.
It seems only so.
The GUI is not ready.
2003-07-09 -
"
ide.exe not allows to set preferences or open a file or saving it. How
to use it?
"
news://news.c3compiler.com:119/EvrYU#RdDHA.956@servidor
want to know more? - learn spanish:
"
I suggest you also subscribe to the Spanish 'Compilador' newsgroup.
There are much more trafic. I use http://world.altavista.com/ to translate.
"
(same thread as above)
> From reading around in the site, it looks clear like it's not the
> category of e.g. xbase++.
Finally, it is definitely not in the category of xbase++.
> But in pricing, too: 100 Euro, electronic version.
100 Euro is to much:
- as the tool is not finished.
- as the support doesn't work.
"
Bruno,
I bought the C3 compiler electronic (invoice No X/XXXX X/XX/XXXX). I
coudn't compile the dbu-prg's from Clipper 5.23 because macro-errors. I
wrote emails to br...@c3compiler.com - but but I got no answer.
I posted 2 messages in the c3.english-NG - no answer from c3-people.
"
news://news.c3compiler.com:119/J7NnLIsgDHA.1212@servidor
-
The below questions become irrelevant, as C3 is clearly not usable for
commercial grade software production.
-
ilias
Looking a little at the names in the old xharbour project:
http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
you see some of team members at C3
https://www.c3compiler.com/En/About.htm
A major supporter of C3 [notice: Spain, like C3]:
http://www.fivetechsoft.com/english/index.html
-
It looks like "C3" is the "commercial version" of the initial HARBOUR
project.
Additionally, C3 looks like an 'ethnic' product.
Many documentations, newsgroups are in Spanish.
Developers and supporters seem to be mainly Spanish.
-
This looks to me like a method to 'shield' the developement.
-
I'm not sure, if the usage of HARBOUR source-code is allowed for
commercial distribution of C3.
pe
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message news:3F740F4...@abeon.com...
[blah]
> This looks to me like a method to 'shield' the developement.
Yes! Absolutely. You caught on quickly.
> I'm not sure, if the usage of HARBOUR source-code is allowed for
> commercial distribution of C3.
Harbour is a Clipper compatible compiler. Get your head out of the sand.
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message news:3F740F4...@abeon.com...
> [blah]
You learn quickly.
>>This looks to me like a method to 'shield' the developement.
>
> Yes! Absolutely. You caught on quickly.
Please clarify:
Was your statement ironically?
Or do you agree with my rating?
>>I'm not sure, if the usage of HARBOUR source-code is allowed for
>>commercial distribution of C3.
>
> Harbour is a Clipper compatible compiler.
C3 is a Clipper Compatible Compiler, too.
Basically the name "C3" results from this.
But what do you imply?
That C3 uses the HARBOUR source-code?
If yes, wouldn't this be illegal, based on the HARBOUR licence?
> Get your head out of the sand.
Basicly you try to stick it into the sand.
What seems clear and obvious to you, does not appear clear and obvious
to newcomers.
That's why i'm asking.
I'm searching to confirm my assumtions.
I do this, as there's no clear documentation about the situation of all
those tools.
pe
[...]
> >>This looks to me like a method to 'shield' the developement.
> >
> > Yes! Absolutely. You caught on quickly.
>
> Please clarify:
>
> Was your statement ironically?
Sarcastic, actually.
>
> Or do you agree with my rating?
No, it's an absurd statement. The people creating this product happen to
not speak English as a first language.
>
> >>I'm not sure, if the usage of HARBOUR source-code is allowed for
> >>commercial distribution of C3.
> >
> > Harbour is a Clipper compatible compiler.
>
> C3 is a Clipper Compatible Compiler, too.
Yes, but they're still working on it!
>
> Basically the name "C3" results from this.
I don't know.
>
> But what do you imply?
>
> That C3 uses the HARBOUR source-code?
I don't imply this, no.
>
> If yes, wouldn't this be illegal, based on the HARBOUR licence?
Absolutely.
>
> > Get your head out of the sand.
>
> Basicly you try to stick it into the sand.
>
> What seems clear and obvious to you, does not appear clear and obvious
> to newcomers.
>
> That's why i'm asking.
>
> I'm searching to confirm my assumtions.
>
> I do this, as there's no clear documentation about the situation of all
> those tools.
All I'm saying is that since the Harbour goal is to be Clipper compatible,
and theoretically, so is C3, then any code that can run under Clipper can
run under Harbour, or C3, or xHarbour for that matter. (Including DBU). The
fact that C3 has a problem with DBU is not something lost on the people that
are writing C3 (a much smaller team than Harbour). They'll get there.
Paul
ilias
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F741CFD...@abeon.com...
> [...]
>
>>>>This looks to me like a method to 'shield' the developement.
>>>
>>>Yes! Absolutely. You caught on quickly.
>>
>>Please clarify:
>>
>>Was your statement ironically?
>
> Sarcastic, actually.
i see.
>>Or do you agree with my rating?
>
> No, it's an absurd statement. The people creating this product happen to
> not speak English as a first language.
I respect your opinion.
My rating is: language is used as a 'shield'.
>>>>I'm not sure, if the usage of HARBOUR source-code is allowed for
>>>>commercial distribution of C3.
>>>
>>>Harbour is a Clipper compatible compiler.
>>
>>C3 is a Clipper Compatible Compiler, too.
>
> Yes, but they're still working on it!
irrelevant.
[they sell already]
>>Basically the name "C3" results from this.
>
> I don't know.
C3 = CCC = Clipper Compatible Compiler.
>>But what do you imply?
>>
>>That C3 uses the HARBOUR source-code?
>
> I don't imply this, no.
But i've implied that.
>>If yes, wouldn't this be illegal, based on the HARBOUR licence?
>
> Absolutely.
ok
>>>Get your head out of the sand.
>>
>>Basicly you try to stick it into the sand.
>>
>>What seems clear and obvious to you, does not appear clear and obvious
>>to newcomers.
>>
>>That's why i'm asking.
>>
>>I'm searching to confirm my assumtions.
>>
>>I do this, as there's no clear documentation about the situation of all
>>those tools.
>
> All I'm saying is that since the Harbour goal is to be Clipper compatible,
> and theoretically, so is C3, then any code that can run under Clipper can
> run under Harbour, or C3, or xHarbour for that matter. (Including DBU). The
> fact that C3 has a problem with DBU is not something lost on the people that
> are writing C3 (a much smaller team than Harbour). They'll get there.
Yes, everyone will get there.
Same way, different paths.
-
Dave Pearson
> >>That C3 uses the HARBOUR source-code?
> >
> > I don't imply this, no.
>
> But i've implied that.
Do you have any evidence to back up this implication? Or are you just
publishing unsubstantiated implications?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>>>That C3 uses the HARBOUR source-code?
>>>
>>>I don't imply this, no.
>>
>>But i've implied that.
>
> Do you have any evidence to back up this implication?
C3 is a "closed-source" project.
> Or are you just publishing unsubstantiated implications?
Clarification: i've implied the possibility.
Follow this subthread back for further details.
-
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
> >
> >>But i've implied that.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence to back up this implication?
>
> C3 is a "closed-source" project.
That doesn't answer the question. Do you have any evidence to back up this
implication?
> > Or are you just publishing unsubstantiated implications?
>
> Clarification: i've implied the possibility.
It is faulty reasoning to imply a possibility that you don't think is
probable and you'd only think it probable if you had some reason to suspect.
Do you have a reason to suspect that C3 is violating the harbour licence?
ilias
C3 is a nice try, leaded by a former (or even current) member of the
HARBOUR team. It is supported by the maker of fivetechsoft.com, a former
(or even current) member of the HARBOUR team.
In it's current state, C3 is clearly not usable for commercial grade
software developement.
Developement- & Support strongly depends on usage of the Spanish language.
To me it looks like some developers become angry about the xHarbour
spin-off and started an "isolated" developement. You can see their
isolative behaviour additionally due to response-behaviour in their
newsgroups:
news://news.c3compiler.com:119/#Co8Z3EfDHA.1288@servidor
-
The possibly most critical thing is: C3 _maybe_ uses parts of the
HARBOUR sourcecode, something which is not easily verifyable, as it is a
close-source project. This would be a violation of the Harbour licence.
-
Suggestions:
- wan't to play around and support it - buy it! 100 Euro (you may have
more fun with HARBOUR / XHARBOUR, as it is open-source).
- wan't to build serious software now: look around for other tools
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>* ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>>>
>>>>But i've implied that.
>>>
>>>Do you have any evidence to back up this implication?
>>
>>C3 is a "closed-source" project.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Do you have any evidence to back up this
> implication?
C3 is a "closed-source" project.
[thus proofing the implied possibility is not possible to me]
>>>Or are you just publishing unsubstantiated implications?
>>
>>Clarification: i've implied the possibility.
>
> It is faulty reasoning to imply a possibility that you don't think is
> probable and you'd only think it probable if you had some reason to suspect.
of course i have a reason to suspect.
> Do you have a reason to suspect that C3 is violating the harbour licence?
I said: " Follow this subthread back for further details. "
Please use manual 'navigation'.
or the message id: 3F740F4...@abeon.com
of the google link (available in a few hours)
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F740F4...@abeon.com
pe
> Closing topic C3.
[...]
>
> C3 is a nice try, leaded by a former (or even current) member of the
> HARBOUR team. It is supported by the maker of fivetechsoft.com, a former
> (or even current) member of the HARBOUR team.
>
> In it's current state, C3 is clearly not usable for commercial grade
> software developement.
>
> Developement- & Support strongly depends on usage of the Spanish language.
translators are available
> To me it looks like some developers become angry about the xHarbour
> spin-off and started an "isolated" developement. You can see their
> isolative behaviour additionally due to response-behaviour in their
> newsgroups:
>
> news://news.c3compiler.com:119/#Co8Z3EfDHA.1288@servidor
btw, when you post these links, they don't work because of the :119 (not
needed)
> -
>
> The possibly most critical thing is: C3 _maybe_ uses parts of the
> HARBOUR sourcecode, something which is not easily verifyable, as it is a
> close-source project. This would be a violation of the Harbour licence.
You have to back it up with proof before you can jump to this sort of
conclusion.
>
> -
>
> Suggestions:
> - wan't to play around and support it - buy it! 100 Euro (you may have
> more fun with HARBOUR / XHARBOUR, as it is open-source).
Thanks for the plug.
> - wan't to build serious software now: look around for other tools
Bzzzzzzzzzt: Faulty conclusion.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
> >
> >>C3 is a "closed-source" project.
> >
> > That doesn't answer the question. Do you have any evidence to back up
> > this implication?
>
> C3 is a "closed-source" project.
As you keep saying. Take as a given that I'm aware of this.
> [thus proofing the implied possibility is not possible to me]
In other words this is idle speculation on your part and you're simply
spreading FUD without a single shred of evidence to back up such
speculation. Do you think it is gentle and kind to spread such rumours about
someone's business?
> > It is faulty reasoning to imply a possibility that you don't think is
> > probable and you'd only think it probable if you had some reason to
> > suspect.
>
> of course i have a reason to suspect.
But you're not willing to actually document the reasoning. And, yes, I've
read 3F740F4...@abeon.com and see nothing in there that gives any kind
of evidence. I can see why you might speculate that C3 is infringing
harbour's licence but if you're going to publish such speculation you
should, at the very least, have something a little more tangible.
Correlation is not causation.
Dave Pearson
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F74474B...@abeon.com...
>
> > news://news.c3compiler.com:119/#Co8Z3EfDHA.1288@servidor
>
> btw, when you post these links, they don't work because of the :119 (not
> needed)
That'll probably be a bug with your news reader or whatever the URL is being
passed to.
pe
news:slrnbn8nt2.8...@hagbard.davep.org...
> * pe <pt_not...@sympatico.ca>:
>
> > "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F74474B...@abeon.com...
> >
> > > news://news.c3compiler.com:119/#Co8Z3EfDHA.1288@servidor
> >
> > btw, when you post these links, they don't work because of the :119 (not
> > needed)
>
> That'll probably be a bug with your news reader or whatever the URL is
being
> passed to.
Since it (OE) come from MS, it's a given. ;-)
Paul
ilias
> Fuck your mother down ....
[OT] - A Shame For The Whole Clipper Community !
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F740089.30806%40abeon.com
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>* ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>C3 is a "closed-source" project.
>>>
>>>That doesn't answer the question. Do you have any evidence to back up
>>>this implication?
>>
>>C3 is a "closed-source" project.
>
> As you keep saying. Take as a given that I'm aware of this.
>
>>[thus proofing the implied possibility is not possible to me]
>
> In other words this is idle speculation on your part and you're simply
> spreading FUD without a single shred of evidence to back up such
> speculation. Do you think it is gentle and kind to spread such rumours about
> someone's business?
[1]
>
>>>It is faulty reasoning to imply a possibility that you don't think is
>>>probable and you'd only think it probable if you had some reason to
>>>suspect.
>>
>>of course i have a reason to suspect.
>
> But you're not willing to actually document the reasoning. And, yes, I've
> read 3F740F4...@abeon.com and see nothing in there that gives any kind
> of evidence. I can see why you might speculate that C3 is infringing
> harbour's licence but if you're going to publish such speculation you
> should, at the very least, have something a little more tangible.
>
> Correlation is not causation.
[1]
Everyone is free to evaluate the possibility himself.
As Everyone is free to exclude the possibility, whilst providing facts.
Trust a little the capabilities of the readers.
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F740F4...@abeon.com
Dave Pearson
> As Everyone is free to exclude the possibility, whilst providing facts.
And the reason you've decided not to include facts why suggesting that
someone's business is based on an illegal act is?
> Trust a little the capabilities of the readers.
Oh, I do. Why don't you?
ilias
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>As Everyone is free to exclude the possibility, whilst providing facts.
>
> And the reason you've decided not to include facts why suggesting that
> someone's business is based on an illegal act is?
>
>>Trust a little the capabilities of the readers.
>
> Oh, I do. Why don't you?
I do.
conversation aborted.