getting serious and delivering major applications 
Author Message
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Hi all you CW (and only CW) experts .....
I feel the time is ripe to use the forum for a discussion on
applications, development and business in general. We seem to spend all
of our time sorting out minor programming problems. Whilst this is an
important aspect of this forum I would love to expand the scope of this
forum to discuss such things as :.....
  1) what languages do you use in addition to clarion
  2) How do they compare to Clarion
  3) When you go out to quote what other langauages do you quote against
     and how do we compare?
  4) Does the language make a difference?
  5) What do you like and dislike about Clarion
  6) What can Topspeed do to help us really compete out there in the big
     wide market place.

My Answers
1) in adddition to Clarion I use Magic 7 .... a brilliant product with a
great interface.. however it is priced off the the face of this earth.
My clients are all small time one off apps who do not want to pay for
runtimes.

2) As a developement environment I think magic is streets ahead of
clarion but it costs 6 times as much per development seat and I must pay
approx $200 per user seat.

3) I only work small time stuff (unfortunately) and don't compete
against anybody cos nobody else works for $5.00 per hour (just joking I
work for $7.50 per hour).

4) Yes language makes a huge difference. I once competed against a guy
using clarion for dos  ... I used CW 1500 .... NO CONTEST .... but what
about other windows apps.

5) Hate not having in-line edit.... Big apps print to band printers not
lasers(at least not in our part of the world)....give us an easy way to
print big print runs.

6) this is open to you all !!!!!!!!

PS maybe we as a worldwide group should help sell each others products
and use this forum as a business platform rather than a learner
programmer forum !!!!!

Regards
John Doughty
Western Region District Council (South Africa)

PS as a {*filter*} howdo Deplhi and JAM7 compare to CW. I have only tried
the JAM7 test drive and didn't get 1 GPF. Plus it has drivers for all
major databases(AND NOT VIA ODBC!!!)



Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

IMHO...Clarion has been eclipsed by PowerBuilder, they have a native
compiler and the PB IDE is a million times more receptive to component
software. And since component software is where the market is going I am
going to do that terrible thing and finish my PB certification.

Mind you VB is streets ahead of CW when it comes to external components,
a fact totally unseen by Topspeed. (For the naysayers, try Err and Error
variables in VB and tell me where thier equiviaent is in CW) when it
comes to OCX's.

They put out a deployment kit, literally years after everyone else and
expect us to debug it on their behalf. I think they should be
concentrating their efforts on CW.

And of top of all this they have a C compiler that (anyday now) will be
32 bit, and noone gives a rats ass about. Borland and even MS are light
years ahead...hell even Watcom has MFC's/

Clarion was great in 1.0 as it was the only IDE to make compiled code.
Now PB can, and VB has support beyond what TTS or TTIS could dream of.I
am giving up this has been, it ain't that cool for developing today's
apps, yesterdays sure, not todays.

Sadly,

Tom Foley

Quote:

> Hi all you CW (and only CW) experts .....
> I feel the time is ripe to use the forum for a discussion on
> applications, development and business in general. We seem to spend all
> of our time sorting out minor programming problems. Whilst this is an
> important aspect of this forum I would love to expand the scope of this
> forum to discuss such things as :.....
>   1) what languages do you use in addition to clarion
>   2) How do they compare to Clarion
>   3) When you go out to quote what other langauages do you quote against
>      and how do we compare?
>   4) Does the language make a difference?
>   5) What do you like and dislike about Clarion
>   6) What can Topspeed do to help us really compete out there in the big
>      wide market place.

> My Answers
> 1) in adddition to Clarion I use Magic 7 .... a brilliant product with a
> great interface.. however it is priced off the the face of this earth.
> My clients are all small time one off apps who do not want to pay for
> runtimes.

> 2) As a developement environment I think magic is streets ahead of
> clarion but it costs 6 times as much per development seat and I must pay
> approx $200 per user seat.

> 3) I only work small time stuff (unfortunately) and don't compete
> against anybody cos nobody else works for $5.00 per hour (just joking I
> work for $7.50 per hour).

> 4) Yes language makes a huge difference. I once competed against a guy
> using clarion for dos  ... I used CW 1500 .... NO CONTEST .... but what
> about other windows apps.

> 5) Hate not having in-line edit.... Big apps print to band printers not
> lasers(at least not in our part of the world)....give us an easy way to
> print big print runs.

> 6) this is open to you all !!!!!!!!

> PS maybe we as a worldwide group should help sell each others products
> and use this forum as a business platform rather than a learner
> programmer forum !!!!!

> Regards
> John Doughty
> Western Region District Council (South Africa)

> PS as a {*filter*} howdo Deplhi and JAM7 compare to CW. I have only tried
> the JAM7 test drive and didn't get 1 GPF. Plus it has drivers for all
> major databases(AND NOT VIA ODBC!!!)



Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Quote:

>Clarion was great in 1.0

Actually, I think that Clarion's acme came with version 2.1 for DOS.

At that time, there simply was nothing available that combined Clarion's
ease of use, programming power, and robustness.

The alternatives were to combine languages like BASIC or Pascal with
third-party screen and file I/O libraries, and what a kludge that was, or
to use one of the script-driven databases, where you couldn't create you're
own look and feel (a moot point under Windows, I guess), and where your
user had to buy expensive license from other people.

I don't know how good the templates were, because I've always hand-coded.

But Windows hasn't been good to Clarion.

I'm encouraged by the increased flexibility of their template-driven
approach, and their file system seems as bulletproof as ever, but there are
shortcommings I find important.

For example, the compile-debug cycle seems to have taken a step backwards
in time. You can't set breakpoints while editing, and you can't break into
the de{*filter*} when running the application. The de{*filter*} won't hold settings
(Library State window, and Clarion Soft Mode, for example), and accessing
strings and arrays is awkward.

The competing products I'm familiar with, VB and Delphi, don't have these
limitations. You CAN set breakpoints while editing, and Run and Debug are
not separate functions.

Also, and I realize the people have gone totally nuts with hundreds of
components, each with hundreds (ok, dozens) of attributes, but doesn't
Clarion go to far in sparseness?

Quote:
>Sadly,

Yea, sadly...


Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Tom,

Quote:
> IMHO...Clarion has been eclipsed by PowerBuilder, they have a native
> compiler and the PB IDE is a million times more receptive to component
> software. And since component software is where the market is going I am
> going to do that terrible thing and finish my PB certification.
> Mind you VB is streets ahead of CW when it comes to external components,
> a fact totally unseen by Topspeed. (For the naysayers, try Err and Error
> variables in VB and tell me where their equivalent is in CW) when it
> comes to OCX's.

Not long ago, PB worked incredibly terrible with OLE and components.  What
changed?  They saw the writing on the wall and made the necessary changes.
What do you think TS is doing even today?  Adjusting and planning and
migrating...

While I do like the PB window formatter much better than CW's, the IDE
leaves a lot to be desired IMO.  Personnally, the almost perfect IDE is
that of VC++/J++.  But that's for that style of development.  How would a
PB implement a full dictionary and template programming IDE?  Terribly is
my guess.  I've used PB for years, and frankly it sucks!  I hate the event
model and lack of freedom in the IDE when comes to actually putting in the
code that you ultimately need to do.  OTOH, the de{*filter*} is fairly good
once you learn how to avoid their GPF's...

OLE/OCX in CW is brand new, give em a chance to clean it up just like you
are giving PB a chance...  About two years ago, there was a large hub bub
in the press about the PB GPF's (remember?)  I do, I was the one that gave
them the information to fix that problem.  Until I was quoted numerous
times in the trade rags over this issue, PS wouldn't give me the time of
day.  Finally the CEO (Mitchell Kurtzman) called me directly and asked why
I hated his company so much to say the things that I did in the press.  I
explained it was not an issue of hate, but rather one of respect!  Here I
find the problem, document it, send it in and still months later I cannot
get a confirmation from my dedicated corporate support tech on the problem.
 He was shocked and immediately transferred me to his lead tech manager, I
gave him the information, not more than 3 or 4 days later I had a patch
which fixed my problems and thousands of others problems as well.  Sure
their response was fast, but it took months to get their attention and lots
of press coverage to force their hand!!!

While we use Optima++ today, I am still leary of the PS regime...

Quote:
> They put out a deployment kit, literally years after everyone else and
> expect us to debug it on their behalf. I think they should be
> concentrating their efforts on CW.

Is this not working on a product that will assist CW?  I think it is.

Quote:
> And of top of all this they have a C compiler that (anyday now) will be
> 32 bit, and noone gives a rats ass about. Borland and even MS are light
> years ahead...hell even Watcom has MFC's/

I give a RATS ASS!  Until we have object variables that we can pass between
VC++ and CW, we need the TSC++ compiler line.  Whether or not someone elses
C++ compiler is superior is not the issue IMO.  I do believe that VC++ is
the best at this time, no doubt, but not because the compiler is better,
but because the tools are far better integrated...

Quote:
> Clarion was great in 1.0 as it was the only IDE to make compiled code.
> Now PB can, and VB has support beyond what TTS or TTIS could dream of.I
> am giving up this has been, it ain't that cool for developing today's
> apps, yesterdays sure, not todays.

Let me tell you a story...  My team and I have been developing a commerical
application in CW for over 16 months, this application is huge and supports
ActiveX, OLE/OCX, ODBC, all common dialogs, is full of OOP technology
everywhere.  We were at our first trade show a month ago, and MS had a
booth across from us.  During a break the MS rep came over to check our
application out, his comments "Wow! That's the best C++ application I've
ever seen!"  I his e{*filter*}ment we were gaging and laughing!!!  Should have
seen his face when we told him it was Clarion for Windows... silence.  "You
mean that's CW?" Yes we said gloting...  "But its FAST, and it uses our
newest technology that is only in beta at this time ..."  Yup we replied...
"No C++ he said?" Well a little here and there we said.  He then asked if
we would like to be sponsored by MS at the next trade show in November?  Of
course we would!!!  WOW, here is MS sponsoring a CW application!  I think
you get the drift.  Its not the product that's the problem in most cases,
its how you use it...

Think about it.

Ross A. Santos (RAS)

X-Generation Software
http://www.*-*-*.com/



Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

John,

Quote:
>   1) what languages do you use in addition to clarion

We use VC++, Optima++, VB, Java, J++, Jscript, VBScript, TSC++, Delphi...
There are just some things one must do which CW cannot handle directly at
this time.

Quote:
>   2) How do they compare to Clarion

The ++ ones are pretty obvious huh? <g> They are used for either
Construction of tools, OCXs, ActiveX, or Web work.  The scripts are used
with Web work specifically, the others are used as needed to fullfill
obligations for clients.

CW is a application development tool, what it gives you is rapid
development through templates, what it doesn't give you is an open door
with MFC (the rest of the world).  So, in order to get there you must use
other tools and technologies like OLE automation services and so forth.

Quote:
>   3) When you go out to quote what other langauages do you quote against
>      and how do we compare?

Most of the time its against PowerBuilder and Delphi, sometimes VC++.  You
don't compare it, you contrast on the strengths and weaknesses.  For
example, if the client's hot button is TIME and MONEY (general case huh?)
then you might convince him that CW is better since you can wip a working
prototype together in a day or so...  This will knock his socks off... but
be carefull, from there to finish can get tricky especially if there is
lots of integration work and that's where the other tools will come in
handy.

Quote:
>   4) Does the language make a difference?

Every language has its benefits and strengths, CW certainly does (templates
and clear language syntax).  VC++ gives you the power to re-use MS' MFC and
object base as well as draw upon pre-fab objects that are easy to purchase
and integrate quickly.

Quote:
>   5) What do you like and dislike about Clarion

Like    : Most everything
Dislike: No MFC compatibility

Quote:
>   6) What can Topspeed do to help us really compete out there in the big
>      wide market place.

Actually, you should ask what can YOU do to assist TS in giving you the
tools you need to compete with the WW market <g>.  TS is working extremely
hard and furious on delivering the necessary tools from their vantage point
that 80% of their customers will use and take advantage of, the other 20%
is left up to us 3rd party vendors (just like all other languages do as
well...).  I would suggest that you continually write-up wish lists and
give them to the TTS folks here as well as any TS folks that frequent this
forum.  They will prepare and pass them along to the proper people who can
evaluate and make it happen.

For example, we needed better and more capable ODBC support, so we tool
VC++ and created our X-Gen class for ODBC.  Then we ported it to TSC++.
Now we have complete and full ODBC support wrapped up in an object that CW
can pass objects in/out of and our performance is over 5 times better than
the standard stuff.  We are sharing this stuff with TS so they can possibly
see how thin layered drivers in object form can benefit the entire
community, especially those that are involved in C/S work like we are.

Do whatever you can and get your thoughts on paper to TS...

Ross A. Santos (RAS)

X-Generation Software
http://www.x-gen.com



Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Hi Ross,


Quote:
>> Clarion was great in 1.0 as it was the only IDE to make compiled code.
>> Now PB can, and VB has support beyond what TTS or TTIS could dream of.I
...
>Let me tell you a story...  My team and I have been developing a commerical
>application in CW for over 16 months, this application is huge and supports
...
>you get the drift.  Its not the product that's the problem in most cases,
>its how you use it...

Not only that.  Don't know how many you guys are in your team, but a
commercial application taking 16 months in development is big.  That
means good fund resources, lots of money.  I guess you could pretty
much have built that application in any language (not saying it would
have been any better or any worse) given enough resources.  Maybe this
is the difference between many CW developers and those who develop in
other languages.  Clarion developer have not needed lots of money to
spend on third party tools etc. until the windows version came about.
I'm fully aware that in a 16 month operation the prices of third party
tools are almost neglectable, but with small projects done single
handedly these can become a significant factor.  If these third party
tools (like .vbx's for 16 bit development) create problems, you may be
stuck with debugging and workarounds for a great deal of the
development time.  With 1.501, which I use today, it seems that to
make things really fly you need at least a couple of third party
templates, some vbx's (which I understand is not always the same as a
vbx<g>) etc.  Some only need the standard templates, but after a while
it becomes a bit boring view.  I sometimes feel that when it came to
the standard templates, TS had lost it's pride.  Sure they work, but
that's just about it.  You can't make much changes in appearence
before your application is generated, so if you don't feel upto
getting into the template language you are pretty much stuck with the
standard stuff or buy some other templates.  Then you are faced with
the problem that if the template vendor goes belly up in the future
you may end up supporting his templates too;)  Life ain't easy these
days that's for sure<sigh>

Since we are telling stories, here is one you may find interesting:  I
know a company in Iceland, developing some of the hottest things in
graphic designs for the internet these days.  For the past year I
understand they have got about 9 million dollars from US and Japanese
investors, but the product will be distributed for free after 30 top
quality scientists have worked on it for close to two years.  I
understand some of their work was used in the "Toystory" movie or at
least it's in a similar field.  Why?  Marketing!  Some of their work
are the corner stones in the future of internet (2d/3d graphic)
development and MS is using their technology (some of it appears in
Win95) for their future version of programs for the internet.  In case
you want to read about them, try:  http://www.oz.is  I think that's
the url.

I'm not contradicting anything you say Ross, just pointing out that
the Clarion history is (from my viewpoint at least) a bit different
from many other products.  With Clarion 2.1 we had a product that
wasn't very expensive, but allowed pretty much everyone to design good
programs without much programming or even without it all together.
This has changed, but I think many who have upgraded still expect CW
to be as "perfect" as CFD 2.1 really was - for dos.  

Best regards,

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     Arnor Baldvinsson                            |
|     Mail address:  Vestergade 24, 7770 Vestervig, Denmark        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| e-mail:                          Web sites:                      |


+------------------------------------------------------------------+



Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Arnor,

Quote:
> Not only that.  Don't know how many you guys are in your team, but a

3 Full-Time including me and one part-time.  That's a really small team for
a project as large as this one... I've been doing commercial development
for quite some time and the optimum number is between 5-6 plus the help
writer, so we are about 4 short to be optimum.

Quote:
> commercial application taking 16 months in development is big.  That
> means good fund resources, lots of money.  I guess you could pretty
> much have built that application in any language (not saying it would
> have been any better or any worse) given enough resources.  Maybe this

If we had done it in any below here is our estimate:

VB - 3 times as long
PB - 4 times as long
DELPHI - 3-4 times as long
VC++ - 6 times as long

CW gave us a great edge in the beginning, now that we are to the point of
lots of "bells and whistles" we are using more and more advanced technology
that doesn't easily fit into the CW paradigm so we use VC++ for the most
part to extend CW.  

We've worked on a very little budget (~500k) which included not only
programmer pay, but hardware for programmers, servers, software, phone
lines, marketing, flights to and from locations, etc...  Its been a tight
one, but the payback will be enormous!  Most projects of this magnatude
would most likely cost in the 1-2m range if done correctly.

Quote:
> is the difference between many CW developers and those who develop in
> other languages.  Clarion developer have not needed lots of money to
> spend on third party tools etc. until the windows version came about.
> I'm fully aware that in a 16 month operation the prices of third party
> tools are almost neglectable, but with small projects done single
> handedly these can become a significant factor.  If these third party
> tools (like .vbx's for 16 bit development) create problems, you may be
> stuck with debugging and workarounds for a great deal of the
> development time.  With 1.501, which I use today, it seems that to
> make things really fly you need at least a couple of third party
> templates, some vbx's (which I understand is not always the same as a
> vbx<g>) etc.  Some only need the standard templates, but after a while
> it becomes a bit boring view.  I sometimes feel that when it came to
> the standard templates, TS had lost it's pride.  Sure they work, but
> that's just about it.  You can't make much changes in appearence
> before your application is generated, so if you don't feel upto
> getting into the template language you are pretty much stuck with the
> standard stuff or buy some other templates.  Then you are faced with
> the problem that if the template vendor goes belly up in the future
> you may end up supporting his templates too;)  Life ain't easy these
> days that's for sure<sigh>

I really don't know of any tool that gives it all to you at once...  VB,
DELPHI, VC++, Optima++, PB, VFP, none that I can think of do either.
That's just the nature of the beast.  There was a significant change going
from DOS to Windows, just as there is in going from Win3.x to Win95 or Win
NT.  Pradigm shifts cause enormous headaches for most, but we have to roll
with the punches in order to keep on moving...<g>  The programming world is
changing very rapidly and will continue to do so, I have no doubts.  If you
work in another language, you are most likely will be forced into source
level changes of pre-fab tools, at least in CW its usually only templates.

Quote:
> Since we are telling stories, here is one you may find interesting:  I
> know a company in Iceland, developing some of the hottest things in
> graphic designs for the internet these days.  For the past year I
> understand they have got about 9 million dollars from US and Japanese
> investors, but the product will be distributed for free after 30 top
> quality scientists have worked on it for close to two years.  I
> understand some of their work was used in the "Toystory" movie or at
> least it's in a similar field.  Why?  Marketing!  Some of their work
> are the corner stones in the future of internet (2d/3d graphic)
> development and MS is using their technology (some of it appears in
> Win95) for their future version of programs for the internet.  In case
> you want to read about them, try:  http://www.oz.is  I think that's
> the url.

Thanks, I'll check em out.

Quote:
> I'm not contradicting anything you say Ross, just pointing out that
> the Clarion history is (from my viewpoint at least) a bit different
> from many other products.  With Clarion 2.1 we had a product that
> wasn't very expensive, but allowed pretty much everyone to design good
> programs without much programming or even without it all together.
> This has changed, but I think many who have upgraded still expect CW
> to be as "perfect" as CFD 2.1 really was - for dos.  

In many ways, CW is at more than the level of perfection that CPD was, but
the difference being that CPD only had to work on a primitive OS, and if
you wanted to do anything outside the envelope, then you wrote C or
Assembler and could control everything.  Windows development is no so
simple, thus the target for perfection is much higher...  Also, expectation
is much higher today than 10 years ago, what we think of as necessary or
that we liked in CPD is not necessarily what is focused in Windows.  Some
things (like CFIL argh!)  are not there, but at least TS provided a source
level tool to perform conversions.  On CIS today, I would say that this is
the number one complaint (which I understand but don't agree with) as
missing in the product.  If that was all that wasn't there, I'd be willing
to write it for TS myself! <g>  But, the industry moves on, and so must we,
and so must TS... Taking time to write something that 10 years ago was
important and putting off something like OCX/OLE support doesn't make too
much sense does it? <bg>

Anyway, take care!

--
Ross A. Santos (RAS)

X-Generation Software
www.x-gen.com



Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications


Quote:
>Hi all you CW (and only CW) experts .....
>I feel the time is ripe to use the forum for a discussion on
>applications, development and business in general. We seem to spend all
>of our time sorting out minor programming problems. Whilst this is an
>important aspect of this forum I would love to expand the scope of this
>forum to discuss such things as :.....
>  1) what languages do you use in addition to clarion

Whatever the client needs. Our preference is for CW but have used Microsoft
Access and Paradox. We haven't used Visual Basic as the market place is too
crowded.

Quote:
>  2) How do they compare to Clarion

All languages have their strengths and weaknesses. Their major advantage is
an open file access system which enables third party tools to be used.

Quote:
>  3) When you go out to quote what other langauages do you quote against
>     and how do we compare?

I quote for a delivered product, not for a particular language. My clients
accept that the language is really incidental. The only people hung up about
languages are internal MIS Departments and I stay away from them as much as
possible.

Quote:
>  4) Does the language make a difference?

See my answer for (3).

Quote:
>  5) What do you like and dislike about Clarion

I like the being able to maintain an application with the original
development tools, and not be stuck with maintaining source code.  I have
found support costs for CFD to be considerably less than other languages I
have used in the past (eg COBOL) but it is too early to see if CW provides
the same.

I dislike the closed TPS file drivers - I suspect it has more to do with
creating a captive market for the Clarion Report Writer than anything else.

Quote:
>  6) What can Topspeed do to help us really compete out there in the big
>     wide market place.

Deliver an ODBC driver for Clarion and TPS files. Then, and only then, will
Clarion have a chance in the corporate market.

Without this it will always be relegated to a niche market.

Quote:
>PS maybe we as a worldwide group should help sell each others products
>and use this forum as a business platform rather than a learner
>programmer forum !!!!!

Why not do both ?  We are all at different levels of understanding, and
benefit from other peoples experiences.

If you have some products to sell, why not post a message and then follow up
the responses with private emails ?

I am always interested in distributing marketable products !

Regards,,

David Groves

Principal
Alchemy Technology

==================================================
Street Address               Postal Address
--------------               --------------
Alchemy Technology           Alchemy Technology
2nd Floor, 28 Ord Street     P.O. Box 468
West Perth                   West Perth WA 6872
Australia                    Australia


Phone:  +619 324 2223
Fax:    +619 324 2226

==================================================



Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications


-->Let me tell you a story...  My team and I have been developing a commerical
-->application in CW for over 16 months, this application is huge and supports
-->ActiveX, OLE/OCX, ODBC, all common dialogs, is full of OOP technology
-->everywhere.  We were at our first trade show a month ago, and MS had a
-->booth across from us.  During a break the MS rep came over to check our
-->application out, his comments "Wow! That's the best C++ application I've
-->ever seen!"  I his e{*filter*}ment we were gaging and laughing!!!  Should have
-->seen his face when we told him it was Clarion for Windows... silence.  "You
-->mean that's CW?" Yes we said gloting...  "But its FAST, and it uses our
-->newest technology that is only in beta at this time ..."  Yup we replied...
-->"No C++ he said?" Well a little here and there we said.  He then asked if
-->we would like to be sponsored by MS at the next trade show in November?  Of
-->course we would!!!  WOW, here is MS sponsoring a CW application!  I think
-->you get the drift.  Its not the product that's the problem in most cases,
-->its how you use it...
-->
-->Think about it.

I LOVE your story, Ross !

Bernard Grosperrin - ALIAS(Bernie) -Team Topspeed Internet



Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Bernard,

But you love them all <rofl>...  Hey! Its for real too!

--
Ross A. Santos (RAS)

X-Generation Software
http://www.*-*-*.com/



Quote:

> -->Let me tell you a story...  My team and I have been developing a
commerical
> -->application in CW for over 16 months, this application is huge and
supports
> -->ActiveX, OLE/OCX, ODBC, all common dialogs, is full of OOP technology
> -->everywhere.  We were at our first trade show a month ago, and MS had a
> -->booth across from us.  During a break the MS rep came over to check
our
> -->application out, his comments "Wow! That's the best C++ application
I've
> -->ever seen!"  I his e{*filter*}ment we were gaging and laughing!!!  Should
have
> -->seen his face when we told him it was Clarion for Windows... silence.
"You
> -->mean that's CW?" Yes we said gloting...  "But its FAST, and it uses
our
> -->newest technology that is only in beta at this time ..."  Yup we
replied...
> -->"No C++ he said?" Well a little here and there we said.  He then asked
if
> -->we would like to be sponsored by MS at the next trade show in
November?  Of
> -->course we would!!!  WOW, here is MS sponsoring a CW application!  I
think
> -->you get the drift.  Its not the product that's the problem in most
cases,
> -->its how you use it...
> -->
> -->Think about it.

> I LOVE your story, Ross !

> Bernard Grosperrin - ALIAS(Bernie) -Team Topspeed Internet



Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

  1) what languages do you use in addition to clarion

        I use Visual Basic

  2) How do they compare to Clarion

        My personal feeling is that VB is by far a better programming language
than CW

  3) When you go out to quote what other langauages do you quote against

     and how do we compare?

  4) Does the language make a difference?

  5) What do you like and dislike about Clarion

        Like - To buy the latest product and see if it has more bugs than the
previous version.

        Dislike -       5.1.  At every Conference that they tell us how far ahead
they are over all the other programming tools, - this is not true!

                5.2.  They make it to difficult for the not so clever programmers

                5.3.  Since the release of CW1.0, no real effort has been made to print
your dictionary properly.

                5.4.  Dynamic Pool Limits drives me crazy.  We are living in a real
world, we don't all put only 5 fields on a screen and then have 10
screen, I want to put all 50 fields on one screen.

                5.5.  Error Messages are not documented.  You get compiler
errors/warnings and you don't know where to start looking.

                5.6.  There are still to many bugs

                5.7.  This Template story is maybe a good thing but I think Topspeed is
taking it too far because your code is limited to 64K, when I want to put
some of my own code in the embeded points there is not enough space left
because TS has taken up those 64K with all it's own code.

                5.8.  To many GPF's

                5.9.   They write their OBJ to the OBJ directory, this is causing a
problem when your space is running low on your hard disk, this should be
placed in your working directory so that when you complete an
application, all relevant files can be backed up and all obj files be
deleted.

                5.10.  CW is not running to well with other applications.  Norton
Utilies and even some MS products are having problems with CW.

                5.11.  Back to the templates - writing all these code themselves makes
life difficult because when you want to debug you have to go through all
these code and I think it is wasting time going through code that is not
yours.  In VB you step only through the code you wrote, no confusing
stuff lying around and jumping in and out and stepping twice through some
code.

                5.12.  Not enough examples are given for the everyday problem, and when
you do get an example it does not work or wrong information is given.  
Like page 49 'User's Guide'  '1.Prefix the file name with "!Glo:."  For
example, !Glo:Customer.  Try to do that, and when you get that right I
shall eat 5.12 for lunch.  And this was only the first example I looked
at when I opened the book.

                5.13.  When I changed from CW1.5 to CW2.0 I found that some of my
'Force Window Refresh when Accepted' has no check mark, but it is still
refreshing and calculating the formulas.  I just want to know how many
other things like this are hidden.

                5.14.  There are too many screens to close and open when you do your
development.  It is an OK here then an EXIT there, then a YES here and
then finally an OK to close the screen.  That is only a simple one, I
gets more complicated than this example.

                5.15.  Hotfields - I can sometimes get my listboxes to work (when I use
Filters) without using Hotfields, it works great today and then when I
want ot work on it the next day, I get an error about this, and then
nothing seems to work.

                5.16.  Using variables in your own code like TMP:TEST if you made a
mistake and type TMPT:TEST, no error is generated for this variable that
is not declared anywhere, CW is just happy with it.

                5.17.  . . .  I think CW has finished it's compile.  I should leave now

  6) What can Topspeed do to help us really compete out there in the big

     wide market place.

    You know you can't touch VB, Delphi and some other languages,  get CW
stable and forget about all the 'nice to have' features.

Please do not take me serious, I am only messing around.  I have ample
time left for making these stories up because my one app is doing a full
compile and I had nothing else to do for the next 30 minutes.

Regards

Marius



Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Quote:
>    Like - To buy the latest product and see if it has more bugs than the
>previous version.

I have been using Clarion products since version CPD 2.0. Every
release of a major product has had far less bugs than previous
versions with the exception of CDD 3.0. Even every release of that one
had fewer problems than a previous version. CPD 2.1 was very stable
all the way from it's inital release through 2.110 although not bug
free, (and what is), never stopped us from delivering commercial
applications.  CW has been fairly stable since 1.0 and each sucessive
release has gotten better with CW 2.0 very stable.

Quote:
>    Dislike -       5.1.  At every Conference that they tell us how far ahead
>they are over all the other programming tools, - this is not true!

This is debatable.

Quote:
>            5.2.  They make it to difficult for the not so clever programmers

Programming isn't for everyone.

Quote:
>            5.3.  Since the release of CW1.0, no real effort has been made to print
>your dictionary properly.

This isn't true. CW 2.0 has a dictionary print utility and there have
been many many freeware ones available starting with the one that we
released back in CW 1.0 days.  Are you so limited that you can't write
your own?... That's the beauty of the template system. It is easy to
do things for yourself.

Quote:
>            5.4.  Dynamic Pool Limits drives me crazy.  We are living in a real
>world, we don't all put only 5 fields on a screen and then have 10
>screen, I want to put all 50 fields on one screen.

There are ways around this. There are no problems with 32 bit stuff

Quote:
>            5.5.  Error Messages are not documented.  You get compiler
>errors/warnings and you don't know where to start looking.

I won't disagree here. Many of the TS driver errors aren't documented
as well as the ISL errors.

Quote:
>            5.6.  There are still to many bugs

Such as?

Quote:
>            5.7.  This Template story is maybe a good thing but I think Topspeed is
>taking it too far because your code is limited to 64K, when I want to put
>some of my own code in the embeded points there is not enough space left
>because TS has taken up those 64K with all it's own code.

Again, only a limit for those not willing to do a little work.  You
can always put a DO routine in an embed point and then add a custom
routine.

Quote:
>            5.8.  To many GPF's

I haven't had a GPF in months.  Could it be your equipment or
installation of Windows?

Quote:
>            5.9.   They write their OBJ to the OBJ directory, this is causing a
>problem when your space is running low on your hard disk, this should be
>placed in your working directory so that when you complete an
>application, all relevant files can be backed up and all obj files be
>deleted.

This is easily changed by changing the CW15.red or CW20.red

Quote:
>            5.10.  CW is not running to well with other applications.  Norton
>Utilies and even some MS products are having problems with CW.

I don't run the Norton utilities, but run MS office, MS explorer 3.0
with netmeeting and others and don't have any problems running it.
Again it sounds like a hardware problem.

Quote:
>            5.11.  Back to the templates - writing all these code themselves makes
>life difficult because when you want to debug you have to go through all
>these code and I think it is wasting time going through code that is not
>yours.  In VB you step only through the code you wrote, no confusing
>stuff lying around and jumping in and out and stepping twice through some
>code.

This is still easy... Just turn on the embed point comments.  I would
rather see all of the code so that I know what I am working around or
with.

Quote:
>            5.12.  Not enough examples are given for the everyday problem, and when
>you do get an example it does not work or wrong information is given.  
>Like page 49 'User's Guide'  '1.Prefix the file name with "!Glo:."  For
>example, !Glo:Customer.  Try to do that, and when you get that right I
>shall eat 5.12 for lunch.  And this was only the first example I looked
>at when I opened the book.

I do this all the time... Seems like you might need a programming
class.

Quote:
>            5.13.  When I changed from CW1.5 to CW2.0 I found that some of my
>'Force Window Refresh when Accepted' has no check mark, but it is still
>refreshing and calculating the formulas.  I just want to know how many
>other things like this are hidden.

I didn't have any problems converting 1.5 apps to 2.0.... Everything
just compiled.

Quote:
>            5.14.  There are too many screens to close and open when you do your
>development.  It is an OK here then an EXIT there, then a YES here and
>then finally an OK to close the screen.  That is only a simple one, I
>gets more complicated than this example.

This can be true... But if you want flexibility you have to live with
this.  With VB you are constrained by their environment.

Quote:
>            5.16.  Using variables in your own code like TMP:TEST if you made a
>mistake and type TMPT:TEST, no error is generated for this variable that
>is not declared anywhere, CW is just happy with it.

CW doesn't have a real time checker.

Quote:
>    You know you can't touch VB, Delphi and some other languages,  get CW
>stable and forget about all the 'nice to have' features.

It is stable and many are using it to produce complex applications for
their customers. I use it daily to produce applications for our
customers.

Quote:
>Please do not take me serious, I am only messing around.  I have ample
>time left for making these stories up because my one app is doing a full
>compile and I had nothing else to do for the next 30 minutes.

I don't know what kind of machine you have that takes 30 minutes to
compile an application, but like I said earlier, you need to check out
your equipment.

Mike Gould
+--------------------------------------------+
| Michael Gould                              |
| TopSpeed Corporation - Consulting Division |
| Team TopSpeed - Internet                   |

| CIS   :  71756,3176                        |
+--------------------------------------------+



Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 getting serious and delivering major applications

Marius,

I normally welcome messages that portray Clarion and Topspeed accurately,
however your reply is full of inaccuracies and generalities, I assume to
put down a very good product.

Quote:
>My personal feeling is that VB is by far a better programming language
> than CW

This is fine as this can only be stated by those who use a particular
product and it is viewed as the opinion of the author and their personal
preference.  This point could be debated to death, but that is beside the
point.

Quote:
> Like - To buy the latest product and see if it has more bugs than the
> previous version.

Oh come on!  What purpose does this serve?  No software publishing company
intends to put more bugs in their product!  Topspeed has a proven track
record of fixing bugs in their product and doing it in a timely manner,
despite not having the resources others like Microsoft have.  This is an
excellent gauge on how talented our R&D team is.

Quote:
>Dislike -   5.1.  At every Conference that they tell us how far ahead
> they are over all the other programming tools, - this is not true!

How so?  We have not only claimed this, but have proved this claim.  Have
you ever attended a DevCon anyway?

Quote:
>5.2.  They make it to difficult for the not so clever programmers

How?  Please provide some specifics.  What is too difficult?

Quote:
>5.3.  Since the release of CW1.0, no real effort has been made to print
> your dictionary properly.

With the release of CW 2.0, we have this ability.  This is done via
templates, and nothing is stopping you from modifying it to suite your own
tastes (I have done this myself and I am *not* a template coder).  

Quote:
>5.4.  Dynamic Pool Limits drives me crazy.  We are living in a real
> world, we don't all put only 5 fields on a screen and then have 10
> screen, I want to put all 50 fields on one screen.

This occurs when the programmer's design is almost totally inefficient.
And it will happen under 16-bit code.  There have been many solutions to
not only avoiding this problem, but how to successfully solve this problem.
 These solutions not only handled the problem, but made your code much more
efficient.

Quote:
>5.5.  Error Messages are not documented.  You get compiler
> errors/warnings and you don't know where to start looking.

Oh come on!  Most error messages state quite clearly what is wrong and to
help the programmer, the offending code is not only displayed and
hightlighted for the programmer's correction, but it will do this for
offending code across embed points as well.  This is a VERY good feature
and has saved me countless minutes correcting silly little things I did
wrong.

Quote:
>5.6.  There are still to many bugs

Which ones are these?  "Too many bugs" does not lead to any resolution, but
is a general statement that obscures the truth.

Quote:
>5.7.  This Template story is maybe a good thing but I think Topspeed is
> taking it too far because your code is limited to 64K, when I want to put
> some of my own code in the embeded points there is not enough space >left

because TS has taken up those 64K with all it's own code.

Just how much code are you adding anyway?  Your design must not be very
efficient if you have to add embeds for the *many* things that the
templates will do for you anyway.  While our templates are not as efficient
as we would like, they are being re-written to make them that way.

We do not take up the 64k limit on any procedure.  If this were true, you
would not be able to add any embed points, now would you?

Quote:
>5.8.  To many GPF's

This is an area that is open to vast interpretation.  Every release we have
reduced the number of GPFs that can occur in the environment.  Today, this
rarely happens.  It is more likely that a programmer can cause them.
However, we are still striving to prevent them, no matter whose fault it
is.  If one reports GPFs when they happen, then we will fix them - period.
I am guessing, but you have yet to report one, right?

Quote:
>5.9.   They write their OBJ to the OBJ directory, this is causing a
> problem when your space is running low on your hard disk, this should  >

be placed in your working directory so that when you complete an

Quote:
> application, all relevant files can be backed up and all obj files be
> deleted.

Huh? If you send the compiled object to your local directory, it makes no
difference on disk space (unless you are on a network).  Did you know that
you can change this setting yourself in about 3 seconds?  

Quote:
>5.10.  CW is not running to well with other applications.  Norton
> Utilies and even some MS products are having problems with CW.

What problems?  You need to provide specifics.  Which products cause
problems and what are they?  How do you reproduce the "bug"?

Quote:
>5.11.  Back to the templates - writing all these code themselves makes
> life difficult because when you want to debug you have to go through all
> these code and I think it is wasting time going through code that is not
> yours.  In VB you step only through the code you wrote, no confusing
> stuff lying around and jumping in and out and stepping twice through
> some code.

This is *very* easy to fix - learn how to code!  The de{*filter*} is one of the
best I have seen and very easy to use.

Quote:
>5.12.  Not enough examples are given for the everyday problem, and
> when you do get an example it does not work or wrong information is >
given.  
> Like page 49 'User's Guide'  '1.Prefix the file name with "!Glo:."  For
> example, !Glo:Customer.  Try to do that, and when you get that right I
> shall eat 5.12 for lunch.  And this was only the first example I looked
> at when I opened the book.

Do you want some salt and pepper with this?  While I must congratulate you
on actually supplying a specific for the first time, what examples are
missing?  Do you know how many "real life examples" we could provide?  It
would fill several volumes and we would still not cover them all.  Who can?
 Come on!  This is unrealistic.

Quote:
>5.13.  When I changed from CW1.5 to CW2.0 I found that some of my
> 'Force Window Refresh when Accepted' has no check mark, but it is still
> refreshing and calculating the formulas.  I just want to know how many
> other things like this are hidden.

Is this a complaint?  The templates from 1.5 to 2.0 is much more effecient
and thus you did not need this checkmark.  If your program works as you
expect, then why are you complaining?

Quote:
>5.14.  There are too many screens to close and open when you do your
> development.  It is an OK here then an EXIT there, then a YES here and
> then finally an OK to close the screen.  That is only a simple one, I
> gets more complicated than this example.

Please do!  We are adhering to Windows standards as published by Microsoft.
 We do not agree with all of their standards, but someone else might!
Again, please provide some actual examples.

Quote:
>5.15.  Hotfields - I can sometimes get my listboxes to work (when I use
> Filters) without using Hotfields, it works great today and then when I
> want ot work on it the next day, I get an error about this, and then
> nothing seems to work.

This must be the 801 bind error.  If you do not bind your filter variables,
you will get this message.  This has been documented very clearly in
several areas.  It even states how to do this.

Quote:
>5.16.  Using variables in your own code like TMP:TEST if you made a
> mistake and type TMPT:TEST, no error is generated for this variable that
> is not declared anywhere, CW is just happy with it.

Aha!  Finally we are getting some specifics!  See?  No that wasn't hard,
was it?  

Did you report this?  Why not?  If you do not like bugs, then why are'nt
you taking steps to get them corrected?  It would seem that you are listing
more reason on why you should not use Clarion (it obviously is not for
you), but do you have to try and tear down a good product to someone who is
seriously looking for better tools?

Quote:
> Please do not take me serious, I am only messing around.  I have ample
> time left for making these stories up because my one app is doing a full
> compile and I had nothing else to do for the next 30 minutes.

Now he tells us!  Yeah right!

--
Russ Eggen
Topspeed Corporation
Consulting Division

[Using MS NewsServer]



Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 34 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. FW: getting serious and delivering major applications

2. Thesis avail: Concrete type inference: delivering OO applications

3. Announcement: Reactor Delivers Robust Distributed Applications

4. Announcement: Reactor Delivers Robust Distributed Applications

5. Announcement: Reactor Delivers Robust Distributed Applications

6. Getting major and minor device numbers

7. FREE JustData application to serious testers

8. Who uses BASIC these days (for serious application writing)

9. Major Language Comparison on Real Application!

10. Major Language Comparison on Real Application!

11. Major corporations using Cobol applications?

12. US-NY-NYC - FORTRAN/VAX - financial applications development - major bank

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software