The L.A Fox Developer Newsletter

June 1994

XPro User Group News (Con't from Page 4)

promote convergence of Xbase dialects and to lend credibility to Xbase and those who use it. The following messages give an idea as to the confusion that surrounds what Xbase is and isn’t:

>>A language is a language... more to it than that<<

You’re right. The thing I appreciate most about the xBase environment is the super interactivity of the ‘command box’ approach and the ability to easily deal at the individual record.

Tom

Tom,

.Xbase. . .command box.. .interactive<<

Well, actually, strictly speaking, that isn’t Xbase. That’s technically the dBASE model. Remember Clipper? No command box. Xbase is the _language_.

OTOH, inherently dealing at the record level _is_ Xbase, which BASIC ain’t.

SAY IT AIN’T SO, MSFT!!!

On the subject of rumours that Microsoft was considering abandoning FoxPro, the following messages were passed back and forth:

Tom,

Just on the basis of what I can surmise about where development efforts are headed, I agree that it doesn’t make sense for MSFT to kill FoxPro To wit:

As an example, dBASE for Windows actually looks better, in some ways, as a client/server front-end than the corporate favorite, PowerBuilder. It has a better object model, very nice development tools and interface, plus the Xbase language (which is demonstrably better at record handling than BASIC) with additional object syntax. It also has some potentially nice, and transparent to Xbase, connec

tivity options.

FoxPro 3.0 is rumoured to be much the same, _plus_ it will have a data dictionary for its robust and super- fast local database engine.

Now, with an arsenal like that, it would be senseless for MSFT to junk a product which may have the potential to become the corporate favorite for client/server front-ends.

Randy Unruh

P.S. And, for a definitive defenition of what the term client/server is used for by the marketing slim, here’s an Unruhism:

Client/Server is whatever can be served to the client.

Hi Randy,

>> FoxPro 3.0 is rumoured to be much the same, _plus_ it will have a data >> dictionary for its robust and superfast local database engine.<<

You mean DBW _doesn’t_ have a local data dictionary??? <ROF,L>

client.

Another <ROF,L>, thanks!

Best,

Tom

Well to all of you doubters. Let me stir up things a bit.

1. MSFT is smart enough to put their advertising dollars where it will do some good. For now FP doesn’t have any credible competition. Those who are going to develop in xBase are using FP. Advertising FP would produce very little return.

2. Access is a new product that in many respects goes after the traditional Paradox market. Hard marketing can bring some real returns here. It is a sensible and prudent place to put some advertising dollars. Also my guess is that the people who are potential Access

(Con't, Page 6)

Page 5