Harbour - Ready_to_Use Distro with IDE

[Pritpal Bedi]

WELCOME

This is Harbour's IDE - integrated development
environment - centric, ready-to-use distibution.

You can download it from
http://www.vouch.info/downloads/harbour_dev_setup.exe

This distro is comprised of following parts:

1. Harbour binaries for mingw and bcc.
harbour/bin/*
harbour/include/*
harbour/lib
bcc/*
mingw/*
harbour/doc/*
harbour/contrib/gtwvg/tests/*
harbour/contrib/hbqt/tests/*
/contrib/hbqt/doc/*
harbour/contrib/hbxbp/tests/*
harbour/tests/*
2. Mingw C compiler.
3. hbIDE.
4. Qt's minimum runtime required to link
and execute a hbQT based application.
5. Environment

This distro also provides building-blocks to
experment with hbQT implementation. It is
particularly useful to Xbase++ developers
who are looking for alternatives.

Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev. It is not
mandatory, just a suggession to keep the structure
simple enough to recognize. You can change the
drive as you wish, and even root folder, but
follow above advice if possible.

After installation is complete, you will have an
entry into the programs folder and also a desktop
icon if you did opted for it. Click any one or
at the end of installation opt for "Run..."

hbIDE's welcome screen should popup in front of you.
To start anything significant, please follow few
simple steps, only once, to setup your environment.

1. Copy {app}env\hbide.env and paste it somewhere.
2. Open pasted copy and change

[ MINGW ]
{content} set IDE_INSTALL=C:\harbour_dev

to

[ MINGW ]
{content} set IDE_INSTALL=C:\somefolder\harbour_dev

assuming you have installed the setup in
C:\somefolder\harbour_dev instead of its default
location.

3. Run hbIDE.
4. Click "Compiler Environment" icon on the right
toolbar and provide the path_to_modified_hbide.env
in "Path to hbIDE env:" field.
5. The contents of this file must show-up.
6. Click "Save and Close" button.
7. That's it. You are ready to build a project.

Let's warm-up with an existing project before starting
some serious work.

1. From <Files> menu select "Open a Project".
2. File open dialog will showup. Navigate to
C:\harbour_dev\contrib\gtwvg\tests, and select
demowvg.hbp.
3. Project will appear in "Projects" tree window
at the left.
4. Right-click on the project name node - Demo WVG -
and from "Select an Environment" menu option
select "MINGW".
5. Again right-click on the project name node and
select "Build and Launch"
6. There you go, if everything is ok, project must
build and you must see demowvg.exe running.
7. Off course you will not see all the images
on the screen, because we have not instructed
this project to "Start in:" proper place, but
WVG console must appear.
8. Quickly add other projects - Demo WVG_XBP.
9. You can also play with demoXBP and demoQT but
for this to happen, you will need to provide
either _path_to_qt_dlls_ as global path which
should be visible to hbIDE or copy
{app}\harbour_dev\Qt\4.6.2\lib\*.dll to
Windows system32 folder or copy in the folder
where demoxbp.exe is residing.

A html compiled help file hbIDE.chm and the same
in PDF format hbIDE.pdf is also included in the
distro. Examine them. These are exactly the same
help which you can find online at
http://hbide.vouch.info/


hbIDE is now mature enough to handle any large
project, but still, please note that this is
not an official release, so you may expect bumps
here-and-there.

This distribution includes only binaries. Please
download SVN tree if you need sources or want to
play with the latest commits. It is not necessary
for your applications.


PROCESS ADOPTED BEFORE BUILDING THIS PACKAGE
- Updated Harbour Sources from SVN
- Build Harbour Binaries for above Compilers
- Compiled and Executed demowvg.prg
- Bundled the Package
- Uploaded to my site
- Downloaded the package on another computer
- Run the Installer
- Compiled and Executed demowvg.prg for each compiler


Enjoy

Pritpal Bedi | a student of software analysis and design

http://www.vouch.in | Vouch, the software that GROWS with you
http://www.vouch32.com | Home of Vouch32 ActiveX Server ( FREE )
http://www.vouchcac.com/vouch32/vouch32.htm | A Windows Extended
Utilities Library for Clipper, Xbase++ and (x)Harbour ( FREE )

http://hbide.vouch.info | hbIDE explained.

[Geoff Schaller]

Pritpal.

You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You
need to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive
and use the program data area designed for either private use by the
current user or the public area for all users of that workstation. There
is even a separate area for program code and data.

These conventions are well known and you and your follower would do well
to adhere to them. The biggest advantage is that you never run afoul of
the user not being an administrator and you don't have to wind back work
station security.

If you do then upgrade to Vista or W7 or a more secured environment
(where the business enforces such things through group policy), there
will not be a problem. The screams I hear from DOS users about Vista+
emanate from such simple things.

Cheers,

Geoff Schaller

[Pritpal Bedi]

Hi

Post by Geoff Schaller
You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You need
to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive and use
the program data area designed for either private use by the current user
or the public area for all users of that workstation. There is even a
separate area for program code and data.

I am trying to understand the intent of your message.

You are advised only !

Perhaps you did not noticed the following lines.
So in practice, you can install anywhere you want to.
I advised because internally defaults are set to
this location and persumably everything will work
out of the box without any changes.

If you install elsewhere, then follow the lines below also.

I assume, here on this group, everybody knows MS guidelines.

Regards
Pritpal Bedi

[Geoff Schaller]

Pritpal.

My intent, I thought, was pretty clear.

Your advice - which you repeated twice - was to use the default folder
layout you provided which is based on installing your code into the root
of Drive C. This is not good advice. I am suggesting three things:

1. Do not create your setup to use the root of Drive C by default.
2. Do not advise users to use the root of Drive C.
3. Choose the safe areas advised by Microsoft for such purposes.

If you follow this advice and adjust your own advice, you and your
followers will experience far less problems now and going forward with
the newer OS about. It is bad news to use the root of the main windows
drive and it violates a whole bunch of security principals now well
established.

Cheers,
Geoff

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Hi

Post by Geoff Schaller
You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You need
to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive and use
the program data area designed for either private use by the current user
or the public area for all users of that workstation. There is even a
separate area for program code and data.

I am trying to understand the intent of your message.
You are advised only !
Perhaps you did not noticed the following lines.
So in practice, you can install anywhere you want to.
I advised because internally defaults are set to
this location and persumably everything will work
out of the box without any changes.
If you install elsewhere, then follow the lines below also.
I assume, here on this group, everybody knows MS guidelines.
Regards
Pritpal Bedi

[c***@gmail.com]

Geoff

I use all my programs direct on c:\ root drive, since instaling on
places recomended my microsoft, some apps wont work properly.
And more important with UAC Completly disabled
Regards
Luiz

On Jun 1, 9:53 pm, "Geoff Schaller"

Post by Geoff Schaller
Pritpal.
My intent, I thought, was pretty clear.
Your advice - which you repeated twice - was to use the default folder
layout you provided which is based on installing your code into the root
1.      Do not create your setup to use the root of Drive C by default.
2.      Do not advise users to use the root of Drive C.
3.      Choose the safe areas advised by Microsoft for such purposes.
If you follow this advice and adjust your own advice, you and your
followers will experience far less problems now and going forward with
the newer OS about. It is bad news to use the root of the main windows
drive and it violates a whole bunch of security principals now well
established.
Cheers,
Geoff

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Hi

Post by Geoff Schaller
You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You need
to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive and use
the program data area designed for either private use by the current user
or the public area for all users of that workstation. There is even a
separate area for program code and data.

I am trying to understand the intent of your message.
You are advised only !
Perhaps you did not noticed the following lines.
So in practice, you can install anywhere you want to.
I advised because internally defaults are set to
this location and persumably everything will work
out of the box without any changes.
If you install elsewhere, then follow the lines below also.
I assume, here on this group, everybody knows MS guidelines.
Regards
Pritpal Bedi

[Geoff Schaller]

Luiz,

If your applications will not run without UAC turned off then all that
means is that you need to take greater care with your application
design. The whole point of UAC and related measures was to prevent
viruses and rogue software touching system folders and files.

8 years ago Microsoft laid down the blueprints for us to follow in order
to provide for a more secure operating environment. Most of us ignored
it. Thus when Vista came along we all told our clients to turn off UAC
because we were too lazy to adjust. So we again exposed our clients to
Trojans and viruses that the Windows OS would have happily prevented
otherwise.

Maybe your software is not rogue but you are forcing your clients to
expose themselves needlessly to rogue software by asking them to reduce
their security levels. That is just plain wrong. You should be ashamed
of yourself.

Cheers,

Geoff

Post by c***@gmail.com
Geoff
I use all my programs direct on c:\ root drive, since instaling on
places recomended my microsoft, some apps wont work properly.
And more important with UAC Completly disabled
Regards
Luiz

[A.Martínez]

Geoff,

The news is "A GREAT PIECE OF CODE IS RELEASED, NAMED HBIDE !:
CONGRATULATIONS Pritpal !"

and the news IS NOT ooooohhh ! parent directory is bad !!!

The roadmap is:
1st. Congratulations Pritpal
2nd. Your hbide is nice and usefull
3rd. I'll try build a project
4th. Problems, suggestions, etc.:
1) ...
2) A small suggestion... directory parent... but is not problem
because the user haven't hbide only us.
3) ...

Regards

Geoff Schaller escribió en mensaje

Post by Geoff Schaller
Pritpal.
You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You
need to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive
and use the program data area designed for either private use by the
current user or the public area for all users of that workstation. There
is even a separate area for program code and data.
These conventions are well known and you and your follower would do well
to adhere to them. The biggest advantage is that you never run afoul of
the user not being an administrator and you don't have to wind back work
station security.
If you do then upgrade to Vista or W7 or a more secured environment
(where the business enforces such things through group policy), there
will not be a problem. The screams I hear from DOS users about Vista+
emanate from such simple things.
Cheers,
Geoff Schaller

[Geoff Schaller]

Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put
into an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so
far superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But
you go right ahead living in the past...

I think you're missing the point anyway.

It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand
the need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new
effort in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.

The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove
a lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC
crap! Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove
this.

I am just point that out.

Geoff

Post by A.Martínez
Geoff,
CONGRATULATIONS Pritpal !"
and the news IS NOT ooooohhh ! parent directory is bad !!!
1st. Congratulations Pritpal
2nd. Your hbide is nice and usefull
3rd. I'll try build a project
1) ...
2) A small suggestion... directory parent... but is not problem
because the user haven't hbide only us.
3) ...
Regards
Geoff Schaller escribió en mensaje

Post by Geoff Schaller
Pritpal.
You would be doing yourself and everyone else who wishes to follow you a

Post by Pritpal Bedi
Run the installer, and if possible, follow
the default folder - C:\harbour_dev.

This is seriously poor form and has been the case since early XP. You
need to follow Microsoft advice and keep away from the root of C Drive
and use the program data area designed for either private use by the
current user or the public area for all users of that workstation. There
is even a separate area for program code and data.
These conventions are well known and you and your follower would do well
to adhere to them. The biggest advantage is that you never run afoul of
the user not being an administrator and you don't have to wind back work
station security.
If you do then upgrade to Vista or W7 or a more secured environment
(where the business enforces such things through group policy), there
will not be a problem. The screams I hear from DOS users about Vista+
emanate from such simple things.
Cheers,
Geoff Schaller

[CV-XH]

Geoff

With all my respect to your person, I'm disappointed with your comments.

If you think the way you think, why are you posting your messages in this
OLD-FASHIONED and JURASSIC-technology newsgroup?

If I remember correctly, many of us think that this newsgroup is named
COMP.LANG.CLIPPER where the applications that this apply is JUST 16 bits;
all of us, random posters but frequent readers, are happy to discuss things
about this Jurassic language and also many of us know the news because we
all read newspapers and also receive mails from other Jurassic colleagues
that are happy with that old and jurassic, old-fashioned, console dos mode,
with many many restrictions, 640KB limited and many other things that
windows, .dot net and others doesn't have for sure.

Maybe your post is more apropiate for comp.lang.xharbour, where the
tecnology is not so Jurassic as you think, and can be compared one another.

For the rest of us, we made our lifes with clipper and in my case now with
xharbour, others may even be using cobol or rpg.
It was 10 years ago when I left coding assembler programs, not too far in
terms of professional life.

Of course it is MY opinion and don't want nor wait a response.

Best regards,
Claudio

Post by Geoff Schaller
Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put into
an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so far
superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But you go
right ahead living in the past...
I think you're missing the point anyway.
It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand the
need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new effort
in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.
The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove a
lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC crap!
Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove this.
I am just point that out.
Geoff

[Geoff Schaller]

Claudio.

Xharbour, to my way of thinking, is just as Jurassic as Clipper. It is
an excuse to avoid doing Windows properly and is nothing more than a
poor man's way of extending a product and environment that shouldn't.
All such things fail to deliver 2010 functionality and capabilities to
clients. It should be the resolve of all developers to keep up with
technology and to deliver technology's benefits to their users. You
cannot do not this honestly rooted in the ancient misery of 80's
techniques.

My original commercial background is clipper and I made it all the way
5.3 and was quite proud of my applications. But I saw the issues with
printers and USB devices and wanted to give my clients the modern
features offered by the PC on their desk. Clipper cannot deliver -
xHarbour barely does. DBF too is now to be shunned in favour of SQL.
This is the future and it is the now.

I lurk here ready to help those that finally decide to take the plunge
and move forward. It is also clear that intransigent attitudes (like
forcing the users to turn UAC off and installers using the root of C:)
are holder back the proper evolution of software.

It is appropriate to comment on such things or are you against
advancement?

Geoff

Post by CV-XH
Geoff
With all my respect to your person, I'm disappointed with your comments.
If you think the way you think, why are you posting your messages in this
OLD-FASHIONED and JURASSIC-technology newsgroup?
If I remember correctly, many of us think that this newsgroup is named
COMP.LANG.CLIPPER where the applications that this apply is JUST 16 bits;
all of us, random posters but frequent readers, are happy to discuss things
about this Jurassic language and also many of us know the news because we
all read newspapers and also receive mails from other Jurassic colleagues
that are happy with that old and jurassic, old-fashioned, console dos mode,
with many many restrictions, 640KB limited and many other things that
windows, .dot net and others doesn't have for sure.
Maybe your post is more apropiate for comp.lang.xharbour, where the
tecnology is not so Jurassic as you think, and can be compared one another.
For the rest of us, we made our lifes with clipper and in my case now with
xharbour, others may even be using cobol or rpg.
It was 10 years ago when I left coding assembler programs, not too far in
terms of professional life.
Of course it is MY opinion and don't want nor wait a response.
Best regards,
Claudio

Post by Geoff Schaller
Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put into
an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so far
superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But you go
right ahead living in the past...
I think you're missing the point anyway.
It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand the
need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new effort
in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.
The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove a
lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC crap!
Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove this.
I am just point that out.
Geoff

[Ella]

Geoff,

In 1995 I was moving from PDP to networked Clipper applications. I've
never been a desktop programmer, and my nostalgies are related to
relational databases with multiple schemes.

In 2005 I bought xHarbour Professional with the purpose of removing
some old applications. For me this process starts with redesigning the
free tables and migrating the data in one or more databases before
developing the new software.

As Visual xHarbour is based on WinApi, it's capable to exploit .NET
resources, and to avoid the flaws of Microsoft's object model.

Best regards,

Ella

Post by Geoff Schaller
Claudio.
Xharbour, to my way of thinking, is just as Jurassic as Clipper. It is
an excuse to avoid doing Windows properly and is nothing more than a
poor man's way of extending a product and environment that shouldn't.
All such things fail to deliver 2010 functionality and capabilities to
clients. It should be the resolve of all developers to keep up with
technology and to deliver technology's benefits to their users. You
cannot do not this honestly rooted in the ancient misery of 80's
techniques.
My original commercial background is clipper and I made it all the way
5.3 and was quite proud of my applications. But I saw the issues with
printers and USB devices and wanted to give my clients the modern
features offered by the PC on their desk. Clipper cannot deliver -
xHarbour barely does. DBF too is now to be shunned in favour of SQL.
This is the future and it is the now.
I lurk here ready to help those that finally decide to take the plunge
and move forward. It is also clear that intransigent attitudes (like
forcing the users to turn UAC off and installers using the root of C:)
are holder back the proper evolution of software.
It is appropriate to comment on such things or are you against
advancement?
Geoff

Post by CV-XH
Geoff
With all my respect to your person, I'm disappointed with your comments.
If you think the way you think, why are you posting your messages in this
OLD-FASHIONED and JURASSIC-technology newsgroup?
If I remember correctly, many of us think that this newsgroup is named
COMP.LANG.CLIPPER where the applications that this apply is JUST 16 bits;
all of us, random posters but frequent readers, are happy to discuss things
about this Jurassic language and also many of us know the news because we
all read newspapers and also receive mails from other Jurassic colleagues
that are happy with that old and jurassic, old-fashioned, console dos mode,
with many many restrictions, 640KB limited and many other things that
windows, .dot net and others doesn't have for sure.
Maybe your post is more apropiate for comp.lang.xharbour, where the
tecnology is not so Jurassic as you think, and can be compared one another.
For the rest of us, we made our lifes with clipper and in my case now with
xharbour, others may even be using cobol or rpg.
It was 10 years ago when I left coding assembler programs, not too far in
terms of professional life.
Of course it is MY opinion and don't want nor wait a response.
Best regards,
Claudio

Post by Geoff Schaller
Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put into
an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so far
superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But you go
right ahead living in the past...
I think you're missing the point anyway.
It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand the
need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new effort
in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.
The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove a
lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC crap!
Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove this.
I am just point that out.
Geoff- Ascundeţi textul citat -

- Afişare text în citat -

[Geoff Schaller]

Ella.

What flaws?

Whilst I agree that no language is perfect (every single one of them has
flaws), C#/VB is arguably the best now. When C# 1.0 came out I would
contend that Visual Objects was still superior but its IDE and support
class environment was inferior. But the advances in Dot Net 3.5 SP1 now
present an object model and framework that is equal to java but probably
twice as productive.

I would also argue that anyone migrating up from Clipper to Windows
would not be in a position to criticise any object model because they
wouldn't know it or have experience with it.

And there are two migration paths here:

Code - Clipper to Vo to Dot net
Data - DBF to SQL of some flavour

Anything based on the WinApi framework just isn't going to compete or
compare with something based on the Dot Net framework. So much more
event handling and GUI handling is exposed to the developer that once
you have built up some reasonable competency, sooooooooo much more is
possible with so much less.

It is that first hurdle of learning the new environment. And there is
cost. With Clipper I guess we all just paid a few hundred bucks for all
our main tools - or we pirated them like all Russians did (it was a
running joke - In Russia there were estimated to be 600,000 active users
in 1990 and 2 paid licences). With Visual Studio (although there are
free versions) it will cost you $700 to start.

There is a challenge no doubt.

Geoff

PS - my first computer was a PDP 8 and a PDP 11/45 we coded in basic I
think and we waited overnight for our jobs to be run as batches.
Punching cards was such fun. Not....

Post by A.Martínez
Geoff,
In 1995 I was moving from PDP to networked Clipper applications. I've
never been a desktop programmer, and my nostalgies are related to
relational databases with multiple schemes.
In 2005 I bought xHarbour Professional with the purpose of removing
some old applications. For me this process starts with redesigning the
free tables and migrating the data in one or more databases before
developing the new software.
As Visual xHarbour is based on WinApi, it's capable to exploit .NET
resources, and to avoid the flaws of Microsoft's object model.
Best regards,
Ella

Post by Geoff Schaller
Claudio.
Xharbour, to my way of thinking, is just as Jurassic as Clipper. It is
an excuse to avoid doing Windows properly and is nothing more than a
poor man's way of extending a product and environment that shouldn't.
All such things fail to deliver 2010 functionality and capabilities to
clients. It should be the resolve of all developers to keep up with
technology and to deliver technology's benefits to their users. You
cannot do not this honestly rooted in the ancient misery of 80's
techniques.
My original commercial background is clipper and I made it all the way
5.3 and was quite proud of my applications. But I saw the issues with
printers and USB devices and wanted to give my clients the modern
features offered by the PC on their desk. Clipper cannot deliver -
xHarbour barely does. DBF too is now to be shunned in favour of SQL.
This is the future and it is the now.
I lurk here ready to help those that finally decide to take the plunge
and move forward. It is also clear that intransigent attitudes (like
forcing the users to turn UAC off and installers using the root of C:)
are holder back the proper evolution of software.
It is appropriate to comment on such things or are you against
advancement?
Geoff

Post by CV-XH
Geoff
With all my respect to your person, I'm disappointed with your comments.
If you think the way you think, why are you posting your messages in this
OLD-FASHIONED and JURASSIC-technology newsgroup?
If I remember correctly, many of us think that this newsgroup is named
COMP.LANG.CLIPPER where the applications that this apply is JUST 16 bits;
all of us, random posters but frequent readers, are happy to discuss things
about this Jurassic language and also many of us know the news because we
all read newspapers and also receive mails from other Jurassic colleagues
that are happy with that old and jurassic, old-fashioned, console dos mode,
with many many restrictions, 640KB limited and many other things that
windows, .dot net and others doesn't have for sure.
Maybe your post is more apropiate for comp.lang.xharbour, where the
tecnology is not so Jurassic as you think, and can be compared one another.
For the rest of us, we made our lifes with clipper and in my case now with
xharbour, others may even be using cobol or rpg.
It was 10 years ago when I left coding assembler programs, not too far in
terms of professional life.
Of course it is MY opinion and don't want nor wait a response.
Best regards,
Claudio

Post by Geoff Schaller
Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put into
an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so far
superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But you go
right ahead living in the past...
I think you're missing the point anyway.
It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand the
need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new effort
in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.
The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove a
lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC crap!
Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove this.
I am just point that out.
Geoff- Ascundeţi textul citat -

- Afişare text în citat -

[Ella]

Geoff,

Post by Geoff Schaller
Ella.
What flaws?

1. Controlling the frequently occuring problems related to MS
softwares requires an investment of thousand USD in trainings, or
paying a contractor with 100$-150$/hour. As 80%-90% of the active
population is working for small companies, these small companies are
preferring to pay for different IT solutions.

2. The managed code is based on a proprietary language & compiler; the
printing is based on a proprietary file format - what if the hardware
industry has much more resources to offer then these proprietary
software resources are able exploit ?

3. The internationalization model and the security model are
unfeasible

4. ADO.net is a work in progress

5. The language syntax is impractical

Post by Geoff Schaller
Whilst I agree that no language is perfect (every single one of them has
flaws), C#/VB is arguably the best now. When C# 1.0 came out I would
contend that Visual Objects was still superior but its IDE and support
class environment was inferior. But the advances in Dot Net 3.5 SP1 now
present an object model and framework that is equal to java but probably
twice as productive.
I would also argue that anyone migrating up from Clipper to Windows
would not be in a position to criticise any object model because they
wouldn't know it or have experience with it.
Code - Clipper to Vo to Dot net
Data - DBF to SQL of some flavour
Anything based on the WinApi framework just isn't going to compete or
compare with something based on the Dot Net framework. So much more
event handling and GUI handling is exposed to the developer that once
you have built up some reasonable competency, sooooooooo much more is
possible with so much less.
It is that first hurdle of learning the new environment. And there is
cost. With Clipper I guess we all just paid a few hundred bucks for all
our main tools - or we pirated them like all Russians did (it was a
running joke - In Russia there were estimated to be 600,000 active users
in 1990 and 2 paid licences). With Visual Studio (although there are
free versions) it will cost you $700 to start.
There is a challenge no doubt.
Geoff
PS - my first computer was a PDP 8 and a PDP 11/45 we coded in basic I
think and we waited overnight for our jobs to be run as batches.
Punching cards was such fun. Not....

Probably - we used them for exercises at the Uni.
As a debutant I wrote code in F77 for a multiuser-multitasking system,
and that time we embedded LEDA queries in the source code.

Now I prefer intranet/extranet solutions based on Linux servers, and
Windows workstations.

Have a nice Sunday,


Ella




"Ella" <***@xharbour.com> wrote in message news:c95eedfe-0b10-4ed6-b813-***@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

[Geoff Schaller]

Ella.

Post by Ella
1. Controlling the frequently occuring problems related to MS
softwares requires an investment of thousand USD in trainings, or
paying a contractor with 100$-150$/hour. As 80%-90% of the active
population is working for small companies, these small companies are
preferring to pay for different IT solutions.

What rubbish is this? The TCO of operating MS software is for example,
about a third of that required to operate a Java environment and around
half of that required for a Linux environment. You are required to
maintain all software and the cost to do so is roughly the same. The
difference comes with the community and tools to support that
development. As the MS community exceeds 2 million world wide now I
respectfully suggest it is the largest of communities. Hanging to
antiquated and obscure legacy systems doesn't seem to be a commercially
sensible thing to do.

Post by Ella
2. The managed code is based on a proprietary language & compiler; the
printing is based on a proprietary file format - what if the hardware
industry has much more resources to offer then these proprietary
software resources are able exploit ?

Quite! So this is planned obsolescence is it? This is just nonsense in
the 21st century. 'Proprietary' died years ago - well in a direct sense
anyway. One day your clients will sniff the winds of change and want
more. Will you be ready to give it or are you just feathering a comfy
retirement nest for yourself at the expense of the productivity of your
clients?

Post by Ella
3. The internationalization model and the security model are
unfeasible

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain? Most of the rest of the world
seems to disagree with you.

Post by Ella
4. ADO.net is a work in progress

<ROFL> ...everything is a work in progress. Everything. But Dot Net is
an evolution and certainly a generation beyond simple Win32. However,
Dot Net 4 is just around the corner. MS is hankering for a genuine
integration between the file system and the OS but it will take 10 years
to achieve. The happy thing for me is that they are still evolving.
Innovators are still out there doing their thing!

Post by Ella
5. The language syntax is impractical

Evidence please? And compared to what? Certainly not Clipper (one of the
least practical in this day and age and the reason Visual Objects
exists). Perhaps you pine for assembler with its directness and
simplicity? The C# language in particular is quite elegant now and along
with VB, very practical. But it is just a language and even a Clipper
programmer would see and understand most of the constructs. It is the
framework that takes some learning.

Post by Ella
Now I prefer intranet/extranet solutions based on Linux servers, and
Windows workstations.

Ah... a network programmer. Well we are applications developers so we
need good and stable platforms. Windows server 2008 is our preference.
It is stable, mature and in wide spread use, along with 2003. Such a
unified and ubiquitous environment makes our job easier.

Post by Ella
Have a nice Sunday,

Indeed I did thank you. Re-potted my orchid seedlings and brought them
in from the cold. Winter is upon us but it will be mild this year. I
hope your Sunday is peaceful and uneventful - just as weekends should
be.

Cheers,

Geoff

[Maurício Ventura Faria]

Seems the real question here is another...

What the hell are you doing in this newsgroup ?
For you Clipper and his childs are just trash, so why bother ?
Go away ...
--
Maurício Faria

Post by Geoff Schaller
Ella.

Post by Ella
1. Controlling the frequently occuring problems related to MS
softwares requires an investment of thousand USD in trainings, or
paying a contractor with 100$-150$/hour. As 80%-90% of the active
population is working for small companies, these small companies are
preferring to pay for different IT solutions.

What rubbish is this? The TCO of operating MS software is for example,
about a third of that required to operate a Java environment and around
half of that required for a Linux environment. You are required to
maintain all software and the cost to do so is roughly the same. The
difference comes with the community and tools to support that development.
As the MS community exceeds 2 million world wide now I respectfully
suggest it is the largest of communities. Hanging to antiquated and
obscure legacy systems doesn't seem to be a commercially sensible thing to
do.

Post by Ella
2. The managed code is based on a proprietary language & compiler; the
printing is based on a proprietary file format - what if the hardware
industry has much more resources to offer then these proprietary
software resources are able exploit ?

Quite! So this is planned obsolescence is it? This is just nonsense in the
21st century. 'Proprietary' died years ago - well in a direct sense
anyway. One day your clients will sniff the winds of change and want more.
Will you be ready to give it or are you just feathering a comfy retirement
nest for yourself at the expense of the productivity of your clients?

Post by Ella
3. The internationalization model and the security model are
unfeasible

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain? Most of the rest of the world seems
to disagree with you.

Post by Ella
4. ADO.net is a work in progress

<ROFL> ...everything is a work in progress. Everything. But Dot Net is an
evolution and certainly a generation beyond simple Win32. However, Dot Net
4 is just around the corner. MS is hankering for a genuine integration
between the file system and the OS but it will take 10 years to achieve.
The happy thing for me is that they are still evolving. Innovators are
still out there doing their thing!

Post by Ella
5. The language syntax is impractical

Evidence please? And compared to what? Certainly not Clipper (one of the
least practical in this day and age and the reason Visual Objects exists).
Perhaps you pine for assembler with its directness and simplicity? The C#
language in particular is quite elegant now and along with VB, very
practical. But it is just a language and even a Clipper programmer would
see and understand most of the constructs. It is the framework that takes
some learning.

Post by Ella
Now I prefer intranet/extranet solutions based on Linux servers, and
Windows workstations.

Ah... a network programmer. Well we are applications developers so we need
good and stable platforms. Windows server 2008 is our preference. It is
stable, mature and in wide spread use, along with 2003. Such a unified and
ubiquitous environment makes our job easier.

Post by Ella
Have a nice Sunday,

Indeed I did thank you. Re-potted my orchid seedlings and brought them in
from the cold. Winter is upon us but it will be mild this year. I hope
your Sunday is peaceful and uneventful - just as weekends should be.
Cheers,
Geoff

[dlzc]

Post by Maurício Ventura Faria
Seems the real question here is another...
What the hell are you doing in this newsgroup ?
For you Clipper and his childs are just trash,
so why bother ? Go away ...

Geoff can be a major pain in the a**, but this thread is about
Harbour, a current effort, and the insistence in continuing to use bad
programming practices, even though we know better.

It would not be difficult to have implemented the installation *by
default* the way Micro$haft wants current software installed. They
even throw various errors if you use absolute addressing into
"Documents and Settings" or "User" file space...

Beyond that, I think things might be a little quiet at the Schaller
household... ;>P

David A. Smith

[A.Martínez]

dlz,

Post by dlzc
Geoff can be a major pain in the a**, but this thread is about
Harbour, a current effort, and the insistence in continuing to use bad
programming practices, even though we know better.

FALSE ! Geoff only wants to desprestiage harbour community !
Parent directory issue its a very bit thing in a great / ocean / modern /
multiplatform / open piece of code named hbide !
But, geoff get to focus over a very bit thing for to desprestiage hbide and
harbour project !



Regards

[dlzc]

Post by A.Martínez
dlzc,

Post by dlzc
Geoff can be a major pain in the a**, but
this thread is about Harbour, a current
effort, and the insistence in continuing to
use bad programming practices, even though
we know better.

FALSE ! Geoff only wants to desprestiage
harbour community !

His motivations are his problem. He has pointed out that we are still
doing things the DOS way, and in this case he is right. Windowze
defaults to not allowing access to the root directory, except for
Administrator.

Post by A.Martínez
Parent directory issue its a very bit thing
in a great / ocean / modern / multiplatform
/ open piece of code named hbide !

Then why does it default to violating the rules?

Post by A.Martínez
But, geoff get to focus over a very bit
thing for to desprestiage hbide and
harbour project !

Geoff likes to sell product, to create jobs, and to work seamlessly
with the operating system. If I am reading him correctly.

Guess what makes the most jobs for us programmers, and makes the lives
of our customers happier? He is like sandpaper on raw nerves
sometimes, but is he fundamentally wrong *here*?

David A. Smith

[Geoff Schaller]

What rubbish!

Are you that precious that you cannot handle a little bit of debate on
the subject? Have you even looked at the alternates? I suspect not or
you would provide some balanced discussion on the subject.

Post by A.Martínez
dlz,

Post by dlzc
Geoff can be a major pain in the a**, but this thread is about
Harbour, a current effort, and the insistence in continuing to use bad
programming practices, even though we know better.

FALSE ! Geoff only wants to desprestiage harbour community !
Parent directory issue its a very bit thing in a great / ocean / modern /
multiplatform / open piece of code named hbide !
But, geoff get to focus over a very bit thing for to desprestiage hbide and
harbour project !
Regards

[Geoff Schaller]

Mauricio.

This is very immature of you. Are you suggesting that you know nothing
of Dot Net and have no strategy for migration away from DOS? Did you not
read through the thread and see the childish and completely
unsubstantiated criticisms of Dot Net's object model? I was asking for
clarification from that person, not you.

All this just smacks of people not interested in progression and
professional evolution. Moving up to Harbour (I guess) is at least
something but it doesn't address the core issues of moving out of DBF
into modern storage techniques nor getting away from Win32 - which I
realise there are some Clipper folk still to reach :).

All I am asking folks here to do is look around and work out where they
want to take their clients and their applications into the future. It
isn't DOS and from about 2 years ago, it isn't Win32. Perpetuating a
16bit application is not commercially responsible.

Geoff

Post by Maurício Ventura Faria
Seems the real question here is another...
What the hell are you doing in this newsgroup ?
For you Clipper and his childs are just trash, so why bother ?
Go away ...
--
Maurício Faria

[Ella]

Geoff,

Post by Geoff Schaller
This is very immature of you. Are you suggesting that you know nothing
of Dot Net and have no strategy for migration away from DOS? Did you not
read through the thread and see the childish and completely
unsubstantiated criticisms of Dot Net's object model? I was asking for
clarification from that person, not you.

:-)

I've realized that your zone is Australia, and you have a strong
preference for one of the widely used operating systems.

Here in the EU we use about 80 human languages, and customers are
paying for software solutions, which often require the combined usage
of more different OS-es and programming languages.

While you are happy with .NET, why should I beat your head with
problems you've never had ?

BTW documenting all the limits I've experienced with this or that
Windows feature it would be a too long story, I prefer to create a new
application by using the strongnesses of more softwares, than
commenting on things I can't change.


Ella


Ella

[Geoff Schaller]

Ella,

But this has nothing to do with spoken languages, which are much better
handled in Dot Net rather than a Clipper app or Harbour...

Geoff

Post by A.Martínez
Geoff,

Post by Geoff Schaller
This is very immature of you. Are you suggesting that you know nothing
of Dot Net and have no strategy for migration away from DOS? Did you not
read through the thread and see the childish and completely
unsubstantiated criticisms of Dot Net's object model? I was asking for
clarification from that person, not you.

:-)
I've realized that your zone is Australia, and you have a strong
preference for one of the widely used operating systems.
Here in the EU we use about 80 human languages, and customers are
paying for software solutions, which often require the combined usage
of more different OS-es and programming languages.
While you are happy with .NET, why should I beat your head with
problems you've never had ?
BTW documenting all the limits I've experienced with this or that
Windows feature it would be a too long story, I prefer to create a new
application by using the strongnesses of more softwares, than
commenting on things I can't change.
Ella
Ella

[Scott Coffey]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:06:21 -0300, "CV-XH"

Post by CV-XH
others may even be using cobol or rpg.

<raises hand> :P

[Massimo Belgrano]

Post by Geoff Schaller
Great piece of code? Honest to goodness man, this is DOS - ancient
history. It is actually disappointing to see so much effort being put
into an 80's technology when all such things and their outcomes are so
far superior and easier in Dot Net and related windows languages. But
you go right ahead living in the past...
I think you're missing the point anyway.
It is disappointing to see such basic, incorrect advice being offered 8
years after it was changed. I find it sad that people want to renew and
build new applications in DOS when the reality is that such things are
always better done from the more modern environment. Yes I understand
the need to maintain in certain circumstances but to commit major new
effort in this Jurassic technology is just wrong.
The insistence of using incorrect operating system layout is what drove
a lot of criticism with Vista: my DOS app won't work! What is this UAC
crap! Mostly it was developer laziness and uncool behaviour that drove
this.
I am just point that out.
Geoff

Hi george
harbour is modern because :
Is multiplatform so you can use also in linuc or mac-os or windows
mobile
You will write one source and compile everywhere
Integrate database access via replaceble data driver that allow use
also sql world
Integrate client server via netio
Integrate MultiThread in language
Is based on modern version of c compiler (mingw,msvc)

Harbour is based on clipper language because clipper have same strong
idea unsupported from modern language like macrogeneration


I suggest follow harbour group
http://groups.google.com/group/harbour-devel/topics
read the wikipedia page about harbour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbour_(software)
http://www.harbour-project.org/
follow my blog about harbour language
http://groups.google.com/group/harbour-devel/topics