On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 gwynp_at_artware.qc.ca wrote:
> > Clipper did/does rock, but once I got into FoxPro I preferred it.
>
> What did foxpro have that clipper didn't?
I think the DB engine was just better. Faster and more robust. Plus
Compound Index Files are a huge advancement over the old dBase index file
format (I don't know if later versions of Clipper than I used added some
type of compound index file).
The language syntax was very well developed, and you could also do
(limited) SQL queries inline. It also had nice elements for building
forms.
I'm sure later versions of Clipper (5+) had cool features that perhaps
matched FoxPro but I wouldn't know.
> Eeep! Then you either switched to FoxPro too soon, or didn't drink fully
> of Clipper.
>
> Here are 2 examples or xcommands:
Very cool. FoxPro definitely didn't have this. But of course you could
still do functions ;)
> Perl (source-filters) and Forth (redefine basic words) allow similar
> tomfoolery. I've always found language that allows one to change and
> augment the basic syntax to be Extra Good.
Yes.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Wed Jan 02 2002 - 12:23:20 GMT