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.