Visual FoxPro programmers
Author |
Message |
Andriy Luchkovsk #1 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
I'm curious how many people in this newsgroup program in Visual FoxPro. Andriy Luchkovsky
|
Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Greg Landr #2 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
I've been into Foxpro for Windows (2.6) and other xbase apps for quite awhile, but i'm just climbing the learning curve for VFP 6.0 and OOP now. I've only touched on VB and I lurk here with the hopes of picking up something useful along the way. I don't think it's too unusual these days to find developers using more than one tool for development. Greg Quote:
> I'm curious how many people in this newsgroup program in Visual FoxPro.
-- Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Peter Mack #3 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
> I've been into Foxpro for Windows (2.6) and other xbase apps for quite awhile, > but i'm just climbing the learning curve for VFP 6.0 and OOP now. > I've only touched on VB and I lurk here with the hopes of picking up > something useful along the way. I don't think it's too unusual these days to > find developers using more than one tool for development.
Well, no. I'm more or less in the same position as you, but I'm not about to write a front end in VFP. Too much of a hassle. Use VFP for the database, by all means, but VB will leave your options open for other data sources. ~ m u U Cheers! \| |> -Peter Mackay / \ _\ /_ Personal opinion only
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Andriy Luchkovsk #4 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing here: lurking :) Quote:
>I've been into Foxpro for Windows (2.6) and other xbase apps for quite awhile, >but i'm just climbing the learning curve for VFP 6.0 and OOP now. >I've only touched on VB and I lurk here with the hopes of picking up >something useful along the way. I don't think it's too unusual these days to >find developers using more than one tool for development. >Greg
>> I'm curious how many people in this newsgroup program in Visual FoxPro. >-- >Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List >http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Greg Landr #5 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
What data sources can you access with VB that you can't from VFP? What do you consider to be a hassle for writing front ends in VFP? Would you also use VB as a front end to VFP data instead of VFP itself? I'm asking seriously. Not trolling to start a "who's got the better tool" war. I want to use the best tools for specific jobs and I certainly won't tie myself down to one tool for all jobs. You know: When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. <g> Thanks, Greg Quote:
> > I've been into Foxpro for Windows (2.6) and other xbase apps for quite awhile, > > but i'm just climbing the learning curve for VFP 6.0 and OOP now. > > I've only touched on VB and I lurk here with the hopes of picking up > > something useful along the way. I don't think it's too unusual these days to > > find developers using more than one tool for development. > Well, no. I'm more or less in the same position as you, but I'm not about > to write a front end in VFP. Too much of a hassle. Use VFP for the > database, by all means, but VB will leave your options open for other data > sources.
-- Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Paul #6 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
On Tue, 4 May 1999 19:29:14 -0400, "Andriy Luchkovsky"
Like many of the posts, I went from FP2.6 to VB, instead of VFP. Considered not only the learning curve, but what resources were available: books, courses etc. At the local book store there is a wall of VB books and only on Microsoft Reference for VFP 5.0! Nobody around taught VFP. Main problems I have experienced with VB is: 1) When editing a datasource you can jump right onto the data fields. In FP 2.6 you had to hit edit, and then were given a Cancel button to back up of the edits. This relates to the scatter/gather commands. 2) Formatting text boxes has been a nightmare - try to display and edit a textbox (or any other box) using $##.## right justified. Later, Strops. Quote: >I'm curious how many people in this newsgroup program in Visual FoxPro. >Andriy Luchkovsky
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Greg Landr #7 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
> > What data sources can you access with VB that you can't from VFP? > > What do you consider to be a hassle for writing front ends in VFP? > > Would you also use VB as a front end to VFP data instead of VFP itself? > > I'm asking seriously. Not trolling to start a "who's got the better tool" > > war. I want to use the best tools for specific jobs and I certainly won't > > tie myself down to one tool for all jobs. > > You know: When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. > <grin> noted. To address your points -- VFP will access the same data > sources as VB. No problem there. > My beef with VFP is the language. It's a mass of patches as Vulcan evolved > into dBase to FoxBase to FoxPro to Visual Foxpro.
Actually, VFP 6.0 has about as much in common with it's ancestors as VB 6.0 has with basic 1.0. Quote: > There's very little integrity and elegance to it.
I personally think integrity and elegance really boil down to the programmer, not the language. Quote: > Fine, if you have a career tied up in understanding the ins and outs of it, > but when you have to share with other programmers, then maintenance becomes > a major hassle.
Hire the right people. <g> Quote: > And yes, I would use VB as a front end to VFP data. That's the essence of > the system. It's not a database, it's not a word processor, it's not a web > browser, but it can control all of those things, using the same language > and syntax.
Yup. And I like that too. Quote: > If you are happy with VFP, then use it, by all means. It's a database, and > a good one, and it has a front-end on it, and that's a good one. But you > are tying yourself down and using an inelegant language.
I still think this is subjective to taste and experience. Quote: > To continue your hammer metaphor, using VFP is like using a hammer > yourself. Using VB is like getting someone else to use the hammer. If the > speed and result is the same, then what's the problem?
No problem at all. Like I said, the right tool for the job is not always the same tool. If I can become as proficient in VB as I am (or will become) in VFP then it becomes a usable option for me. That's why I'm here. :) Quote: > Using your logic, we might as well not use VB at all, because every other > program is purpose built for what they do. Why on earth should we use VB to > open up a web browser when any fool can go and click on IE for themselves?
I certainly wouldn't go (and haven't gone) that far. My point was actually that we should stay as diverse as possible. Our marketability goes up when we know both (and other languages as well). It's nice talking to ya. Cheers, Greg -- Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Peter Mack #8 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
> What data sources can you access with VB that you can't from VFP? > What do you consider to be a hassle for writing front ends in VFP? > Would you also use VB as a front end to VFP data instead of VFP itself? > I'm asking seriously. Not trolling to start a "who's got the better tool" > war. I want to use the best tools for specific jobs and I certainly won't > tie myself down to one tool for all jobs. > You know: When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems become nails.
<grin> noted. To address your points -- VFP will access the same data sources as VB. No problem there. My beef with VFP is the language. It's a mass of patches as Vulcan evolved into dBase to FoxBase to FoxPro to Visual Foxpro. There's very little integrity and elegance to it. Fine, if you have a career tied up in understanding the ins and outs of it, but when you have to share with other programmers, then maintenance becomes a major hassle. And yes, I would use VB as a front end to VFP data. That's the essence of the system. It's not a database, it's not a word processor, it's not a web browser, but it can control all of those things, using the same language and syntax. If you are happy with VFP, then use it, by all means. It's a database, and a good one, and it has a front-end on it, and that's a good one. But you are tying yourself down and using an inelegant language. To continue your hammer metaphor, using VFP is like using a hammer yourself. Using VB is like getting someone else to use the hammer. If the speed and result is the same, then what's the problem? Using your logic, we might as well not use VB at all, because every other program is purpose built for what they do. Why on earth should we use VB to open up a web browser when any fool can go and click on IE for themselves? ~ m u U Cheers! \| |> -Peter Mackay / \ _\ /_ Personal opinion only
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Peter Mack #9 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
> On Tue, 4 May 1999 19:29:14 -0400, "Andriy Luchkovsky"
> Like many of the posts, I went from FP2.6 to VB, instead of VFP. > Considered not only the learning curve, but what resources were > available: books, courses etc. > At the local book store there is a wall of VB books and only on > Microsoft Reference for VFP 5.0! Nobody around taught VFP. > Main problems I have experienced with VB is: > 1) When editing a datasource you can jump right onto the data fields. > In FP 2.6 you had to hit edit, and then were given a Cancel button to > back up of the edits. This relates to the scatter/gather commands.
BFD. You still have to use the Edit method before you can modify a VB recordset. If you as a programmer let people change data, (say with a bound control), then you have to accept the consequences. Quote: > 2) Formatting text boxes has been a nightmare - try to display and > edit a textbox (or any other box) using $##.## right justified.
I understand the Microsoft Masked Edit control can do this. ~ m u U Cheers! \| |> -Peter Mackay / \ _\ /_ Personal opinion only
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Greg Landr #10 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
<snip> Quote: > I think that what he was saying was that the language has evolved a very > long way just as VB has.
Exactly. <snip> Quote: > If you are talking about old Fox 2.6 > with all it's snippets scattered all over hells half acre, then yes, I have > to agree, but as far as VFP is concerned, I disagree heartily.
I'm also glad to be done with the 2.6 stuff. Cheers, Greg -- Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Greg Landr #11 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
<snip> > VB, however, is still recognisably the Basic I learnt on a TRS-80. Shorn of > line numbers and with subroutines evolved into procedures, all of the good > gear is "under the bonnet" with the MyData.MyElement.MyProperty.MyMethod > sort of syntax.
Ditto. I think you just made the point I was trying to make. <snip> Quote: > > I personally think integrity and elegance really boil down to the > > programmer, not the language. > Fine if all languages were created equal, and all programmers likewise. Out > in the real world, projects get worked on by many programmers from many > backgrounds, and many different levels of skill. Ever try to maintain C++ > code written by a few different programmers? Do the same with VB code and > it's a lot easier.
I'm in the real world. <g> I just don't hire people to work on code if they don't have the proper background or the inherent ability to learn. The maintainability of code should not become more difficult because more programmers have worked on it. If you have a systematic development approach that is taught to the team, then that becomes a non-issue. Even programmers who I have not met can still maintain my code because I adhere to certain coding standards and include plenty of comments. Again, this becomes an issue not of the language, but the programmer and documentation standards. Quote: > VFP is a great database and a so-so language. Simple as that.
Still just an opinion. <snip> Quote: > > > And yes, I would use VB as a front end to VFP data. That's the essence of > > > the system. It's not a database, it's not a word processor, it's not a web > > > browser, but it can control all of those things, using the same language > > > and syntax. > > Yup. And I like that too. > Now, if you want an elegant language that does this sort of stuff, have a > look at AppleScript. It has shitloads of elegance. > Pity that it doesn't have the user base.
That's kinda funny. I hear that all the time about VFP. <g> Quote: > > > If you are happy with VFP, then use it, by all means. It's a database, and > > > a good one, and it has a front-end on it, and that's a good one. But you > > > are tying yourself down and using an inelegant language. > > I still think this is subjective to taste and experience. > Indeed. But I'm an xBase programmer from way back, and after discovering > VB, I don't care if I never code another line in FoxPro.
That's fine. I just won't let that stop me from learning both. <g> <snip> Quote: > > It's nice talking to ya. > You too. I really shouldn't be so argumentative. I spend most of my on-line > time in a politics group where it's taken for granted that the other guy's > opinions are a long way from yours and very strongly held.
No problem. Geez, if we agreed on everything, this'd be no fun at all. <BG> Cheers, Greg -- Become a member of the FoxShare Mailing List http://www.hourglassconsulting.com/whyted/default.asp?cTable=foxShare
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Peter Mack #12 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote:
> > > What data sources can you access with VB that you can't from VFP? > > > What do you consider to be a hassle for writing front ends in VFP? > > > Would you also use VB as a front end to VFP data instead of VFP itself? > > > I'm asking seriously. Not trolling to start a "who's got the better tool" > > > war. I want to use the best tools for specific jobs and I certainly won't > > > tie myself down to one tool for all jobs. > > > You know: When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. > > <grin> noted. To address your points -- VFP will access the same data > > sources as VB. No problem there. > > My beef with VFP is the language. It's a mass of patches as Vulcan evolved > > into dBase to FoxBase to FoxPro to Visual Foxpro. > Actually, VFP 6.0 has about as much in common with it's ancestors as VB 6.0 > has with basic 1.0.
I think you've made my point for me. VB, however, is still recognisably the Basic I learnt on a TRS-80. Shorn of line numbers and with subroutines evolved into procedures, all of the good gear is "under the bonnet" with the MyData.MyElement.MyProperty.MyMethod sort of syntax. Quote: > > There's very little integrity and elegance to it. > I personally think integrity and elegance really boil down to the > programmer, not the language.
Fine if all languages were created equal, and all programmers likewise. Out in the real world, projects get worked on by many programmers from many backgrounds, and many different levels of skill. Ever try to maintain C++ code written by a few different programmers? Do the same with VB code and it's a lot easier. VFP is a great database and a so-so language. Simple as that. Quote: > > Fine, if you have a career tied up in understanding the ins and outs of it, > > but when you have to share with other programmers, then maintenance becomes > > a major hassle. > Hire the right people. <g>
If only it were so. 8^) Quote: > > And yes, I would use VB as a front end to VFP data. That's the essence of > > the system. It's not a database, it's not a word processor, it's not a web > > browser, but it can control all of those things, using the same language > > and syntax. > Yup. And I like that too.
Now, if you want an elegant language that does this sort of stuff, have a look at AppleScript. It has shitloads of elegance. Pity that it doesn't have the user base. Quote: > > If you are happy with VFP, then use it, by all means. It's a database, and > > a good one, and it has a front-end on it, and that's a good one. But you > > are tying yourself down and using an inelegant language. > I still think this is subjective to taste and experience.
Indeed. But I'm an xBase programmer from way back, and after discovering VB, I don't care if I never code another line in FoxPro. Quote: > > To continue your hammer metaphor, using VFP is like using a hammer > > yourself. Using VB is like getting someone else to use the hammer. If the > > speed and result is the same, then what's the problem? > No problem at all. Like I said, the right tool for the job is not always > the same tool. If I can become as proficient in VB as I am (or will become) > in VFP then it becomes a usable option for me. That's why I'm here. :) > > Using your logic, we might as well not use VB at all, because every other > > program is purpose built for what they do. Why on earth should we use VB to > > open up a web browser when any fool can go and click on IE for themselves? > I certainly wouldn't go (and haven't gone) that far. > My point was actually that we should stay as diverse as possible. > Our marketability goes up when we know both (and other languages as well). > It's nice talking to ya.
You too. I really shouldn't be so argumentative. I spend most of my on-line time in a politics group where it's taken for granted that the other guy's opinions are a long way from yours and very strongly held. ~ m u U Cheers! \| |> -Peter Mackay / \ _\ /_ Personal opinion only
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
lemm.. #13 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
Quote: >> Actually, VFP 6.0 has about as much in common with it's ancestors as VB 6.0 >> has with basic 1.0. >I think you've made my point for me. >VB, however, is still recognisably the Basic I learnt on a TRS-80. Shorn of >line numbers and with subroutines evolved into procedures, all of the good >gear is "under the bonnet" with the MyData.MyElement.MyProperty.MyMethod >sort of syntax.
I think that what he was saying was that the language has evolved a very long way just as VB has. Interestingly enough, Foxpro is still recognisably Foxpro. All of the good gear is 'under the bonnet' with the MyData.MyElement.MyProperty.MyMethod sort of syntax. One of the nice things about Fox's object model (an excellent object model too) is that when you are creating a class, you can add a propery or a method without messing with all that silly 'get', 'let', 'set' stuff. You want to add a property? Click on the menu - "class"/"add property", and give it a name. Now you have a property. It's hard for me to see how VB is more maintainable. In terms of interface, they are both quite easy to use. Fox has a bit more complication in that it uses inheritance, but VB more maintainable? I'm not nearly convinced. If you are talking about old Fox 2.6 with all it's snippets scattered all over hells half acre, then yes, I have to agree, but as far as VFP is concerned, I disagree heartily. My 3.5 cents Canadian funds. Alan
(with a 'p' on 'alan' making it 'alanp', and no spaces). I'm sick of email spam.
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Paul #14 / 14
|
 Visual FoxPro programmers
PS: Been reading some of the other posts. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if usoft had not picked up the rights to FoxPro. Yes 2.6 for Windows was a bit rough in Windows, but it was a Dos port. Problem is that usoft had two products (FP and VB) at the same level. In my opinion they tried to get FP to the level of an Oracle product. If they had targeted FP at the entry level user, why would anybody buy Access? They had a target audience that believed it was ok to have to buy a front end for an entry level database and to buy SQL Server licenses if they wanted to do any serious database appliciations in VB (or any that required no loss of data). Could be wrong, but that's the way I see it. Strops. Quote: >On Tue, 4 May 1999 19:29:14 -0400, "Andriy Luchkovsky"
>Like many of the posts, I went from FP2.6 to VB, instead of VFP. >Considered not only the learning curve, but what resources were >available: books, courses etc. >At the local book store there is a wall of VB books and only on >Microsoft Reference for VFP 5.0! Nobody around taught VFP. >Main problems I have experienced with VB is: >1) When editing a datasource you can jump right onto the data fields. >In FP 2.6 you had to hit edit, and then were given a Cancel button to >back up of the edits. This relates to the scatter/gather commands. >2) Formatting text boxes has been a nightmare - try to display and >edit a textbox (or any other box) using $##.## right justified. >Later, >Strops. >>I'm curious how many people in this newsgroup program in Visual FoxPro. >>Andriy Luchkovsky
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|