Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of - apparently
it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech which I
believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1482165446.487387.823777345.41FA444E@webmail.messagingengine.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
>Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of - apparently
>it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech which I
>believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
My recollection is that Arago bought dbXL, which was the system I
used before I got into VFP. At the time when I was using dbXL, if you
wanted the ability to compile your code into an executable, you had
to buy the separate Arago compiler. This would produce, unlike VFP,
which is an "interpreted" language, a fully self-contained executable
with no dependencies. However, there were significant differences in
behavior between the uncompiled code as run in the dbXL command
window, and the compiled executable, especially with regard to
processing of keystrokes and with the display of higher-order ASCII
"box" characters. I had to do a search-and-replace routine on my code
to deal with those issues every time I wanted to compile a version.
dbXL became unusable as a result of the millenium, because it stored
dates containing two-digit years in its version of dbf files every
time those files were opened.
It was an excellent system in its time though, and it had a fantastic
help manual which enabled me to teach myself how to use it.
dbXL contained no report engine. At the recommendation of a
consultant, I bought the Focus Report Writer, but because its manual,
unlike that of dbXL, basically sucked, I wasn't able to figure out
how to use it. I did all my reports with @ SAY...GET commands.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/07.35.28949.26418585@cdptpa-omsmta02
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Here's an ad from 1992:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Alan Bourke <alanpbourke@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of - apparently
> it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech which I
> believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
>
>
> --
>
> Alan Bourke
>
> alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4vLNYHhniD+pDFusTuocbf5NfCifKLf2vHeiA_XxoeGfg@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0, which
was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked such a
complete compiler.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hnvCf6WlcYcC&pg=PP46&lpg=PP46&dq=arago+pro
fessional&source=bl&ots=CYTybALpXo&sig=yr1ebEAKHHLpSO8_jUHgoNzdqhE&hl=en&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwjR-JjI9oDRAhUKw1QKHXltAqAQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=arago%20professi
onal&f=false
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ted
Roche
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:38 AM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
Here's an ad from 1992:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3D0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=AEALCrHqG6&dq=db
XL%20dbase%20database&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=dbXL%20dbase%20database&f=false
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Alan Bourke <alanpbourke@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
> Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of -
> apparently it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech
> which I believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
>
>
> --
>
> Alan Bourke
>
> alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/00b801d25a2a$1748d0e0$45da72a0$@PioneerDrama.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
More like Clipper then in a way, i.e. compiles to a self-contained EXE.
Interesting.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, at 06:59 PM, Michael Glassman wrote:
> Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0,
> which
> was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked such a
> complete compiler.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=hnvCf6WlcYcC&pg=PP46&lpg=PP46&dq=arago+pro
> fessional&source=bl&ots=CYTybALpXo&sig=yr1ebEAKHHLpSO8_jUHgoNzdqhE&hl=en&sa=
> X&ved=0ahUKEwjR-JjI9oDRAhUKw1QKHXltAqAQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=arago%20professi
> onal&f=false
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ted
> Roche
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:38 AM
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
>
> Here's an ad from 1992:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=3D0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=AEALCrHqG6&dq=db
> XL%20dbase%20database&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=dbXL%20dbase%20database&f=false
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Alan Bourke <alanpbourke@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> > Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of -
> > apparently it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech
> > which I believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Alan Bourke
> >
> > alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
> > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > text/html
> > ---
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1482178206.537427.824012593.129F77B8@webmail.messagingengine.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
These were the fun days. New software coming on the market all the
time. The annual West Coast Computer Faire was where 'it was' in the SF
Bay Area. This is where I bought my copy of dBASE II for CP/M from
George Tate of Ashton-Tate while he was manning a dealer's booth! Word
Tech, from Orinda, here in the SF Bay Area had come out with a previous
program to compete with dBASE III, dBXL. It was also an interpreter.
The developers wanted to protect their code so we had several bundled
.EXEs that had the interpreter embedded in them. Arago, as I remember
was not a great feature improvement. Its claim to fame was it would
test all the if/thens, etc. with all the answers to find errors that
would take developers a long time. I also heard that Borland bought
it. Either they wanted the WordTech products off the market or they
wanted the WordTech staff, because the products disappeared.
This type of database application creator is what I have been looking
for under Linux since the '90s. Can't find it, so I use Foxpro/DOS
under Dosemu/Linux.
John
On 12/19/2016 12:10 PM, Alan Bourke wrote:
> More like Clipper then in a way, i.e. compiles to a self-contained EXE.
> Interesting.
>
> -- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm On Mon, 19 Dec 2016,
> at 06:59 PM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>> Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0,
>> which
>> was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked such a
>> complete compiler.
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=hnvCf6WlcYcC&pg=PP46&lpg=PP46&dq=arago+pro
>> fessional&source=bl&ots=CYTybALpXo&sig=yr1ebEAKHHLpSO8_jUHgoNzdqhE&hl=en&sa=
>> X&ved=0ahUKEwjR-JjI9oDRAhUKw1QKHXltAqAQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=arago%20professi
>> onal&f=false
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ted
>> Roche
>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:38 AM
>> To:profoxtech@leafe.com
>> Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
>>
>> Here's an ad from 1992:
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=3D0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=AEALCrHqG6&dq=db
>> XL%20dbase%20database&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=dbXL%20dbase%20database&f=false
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Alan Bourke<alanpbourke@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>> Came across the name of this tool which I'd never heard of -
>>> apparently it was an early 90's dBase-compatible system from Wordtech
>>> which I believe Borland then bought. Anyone ever use it?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Alan Bourke
>>>
>>> alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>> text/html
>>> ---
>>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/93f8ae2c-0a4c-7f14-d615-c07217b161d8@americansentry.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
At 10:59 2016-12-19, "Michael Glassman" <MHGlassman@PioneerDrama.com> wrote:
>Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0, which
>was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked such a
>complete compiler.
So what made its compiler more complete?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1244b90aa5ca81190b07d2a73d2b5575@mtlp000086
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's
"true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only
distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes
were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.
Coincidentally enough, the same issue of PC Magazine has a comparative
review of five Xbase development systems, including FoxPro 2.0, Clipper, and
dBASE III/VI. FoxPro won hands down! From the Google Books left menu,
search for "Xbase Development Systems" in the same issue. Makes for very
nostalgia-inducing reading.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Gene
Wirchenko
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:09 PM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: RE: [NF] Arago
At 10:59 2016-12-19, "Michael Glassman" <MHGlassman@PioneerDrama.com> wrote:
>Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0,
>which was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked
>such a complete compiler.
So what made its compiler more complete?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/00da01d25a5d$1d28fed0$577afc70$@PioneerDrama.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
>I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's
>"true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only
>distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes
>were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.
As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL,
you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no
requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.
It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a
386 40 MHz machine.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/2F.21.28949.88788585@cdptpa-omsmta02
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!
That being said, of course, when I would render 3D Images, 15-20 min for
a single image is NOT out of the Ordinary!
-K-
On 12/19/2016 8:23 PM, Ken Dibble wrote:
>
>> I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to
>> Arago's
>> "true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only
>> distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file
>> sizes
>> were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.
>
> As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you
> got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no
> requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.
>
> It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a
> 386 40 MHz machine.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/b29fa912-2e88-1bf0-17a5-ab80158c692c@optonline.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.