Visual FoxPro programmers 
Author Message
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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.

- Show quoted text -

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  
 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  
 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  
 
 [ 14 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. NEED FOXPRO/VISUAL FOXPRO PROGRAMMER!!!!

2. Visual FoxPro Programmer/Analyst Position

3. US-OR-Portland Visual FoxPro Programmer

4. Any native database to use in VB, like DBF foxPro table in Visual Foxpro, with no ado connection and recordet need, like visual foxpro?

5. Visual FoxPro indexing in Visual Basic

6. using Visual FoxPro Databases in Visual Basic 6.0

7. access table updated by Visual Basic passed on to visual Foxpro

8. Visual Foxpro or Visual Basic

9. Visual Basic 6 and Visual Foxpro

10. visual foxpro or visual basic?

11. Visual Basic 5/6 vs Visual FoxPro 5/6

12. Visual Basic vs Visual FoxPro

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software