First off, this is in no way an attempt to bash AreaList Pro. It is one
of the best and most solid plugins available. Price is write and support
continues to be great. If any plugin fits your needs by all means stick with
it. Some of yoI have may remember that in the old days I always argued for the
use of plugins. I still feel the same and will gladly argue for their use
again. Replacement in favor of a built in 4D feature is a different story.
After many many solid years with AreaList Pro, however, I made the
switch to 4D listboxes a couple of years ago. I made the switch because I got
tired of dealing with plugins in general when upgrading 4D over time. In most
4D upgrades over the years making sure the plugins worked and were properly
licensed has always been the biggest hurdle (the move to 64bit and 4D Write Pro
are the most glaring examples of exceptions to the rule).
Another reason I am prone to switch is that I find that debugging code
that involves a plugin can be a real headache. Also it is far easier to force a
crash when using a plugin vs a built in 4D feature.
To me plugins exist to fill gaps in 4D. When those gaps are filled in
by 4D, it is time for me to consider abandoning the plugin that bridged the
gap. AreaList Pro, PrintList Pro. ObjectTools, and DisplayLiat have all been
victims of my evolved philosophy with regard to plugins. Having far fewer
plugins today makes my programming life far less complicated than before. I’ve
found that the effort to replace has definitley paid off for me in the end.
Referring to Philipp’s comments...
> It would be too bad (and very time consuming) to get rid of all your hard
> work instead of just following AreaList Pro's evolution.
Actually I found the switch less painful than expected for all of these
plugins. I always wrap plugin commands as much as I can as soon as I get them
so that replacing code is an orderly and centralized process. Also I never
touch the existing implantation of the plugin. I duplicate the methods and in
the case of AreaList make the AreaList areas invisible and place the listbox on
top of the ALPRo area. For other form objects that contain plugin code I like
to put the object's code inside a case statement with both the plugin's code
and the new 4D code in the same object. I don’t remove the plugin until I am
sure that the replacement works as expected. A day or 2 of work at most.
> The main ListBox features are basically AreaList Pro v6-7, IOW they (almost)
> do what AreaList Pro did 20 years ago.
True, but that is no reason to keep using the plugin if 4D can do every
thing you want now, be it 20 years later. If I later find a feature that I
absolutely have to have and the only way is to use ALPro, put it back in the
mix. So far I have not run into a subsequent need for a feature in a replaced
plugin.
> 4 versions (and many years) later there is still no comparison between the
> basic ListBoxes and the numerous features added by AreaList Pro v9 and v10.
> To name a few: breaks, sub-totals/calculations, transposition, displaying
> mySQL data, complete granularity up to cell level, event callbacks, area
> templates (global default settings), multiple header rows, zoom, etc.
True again, but if you need any of those things the gap has not yet
been filled… don’t replace. I you do not need any of those featrures nor expect
to in the future… it may be time to replace.
> And the property-based syntax since version 9 makes it very easy to program.
For me I find it easier to program a listbox than an AreaListPro area,
but I do agree that it is easy to program AreaList.
>
> Now the recent features of ListBoxes regarding object support are not yet
> available in AreaList Pro, just because we have the same level of information
> as everyone else here, so it take time to catch up. OTOH it provides the
> distance to think twice about how it should be done, and collect requests
> from informed developers.
Not an issue if you still have a need to continue to use AreaList. The
beauty of AreaList is that when it does catch up it often does what ever was
lacking better than 4D.
>
> BTW these features often (and increasingly will) require a 4D View pro
> license, much more expensive than AreaList Pro.
Good point. I only have one client where there was a need for View. The
difference in maintenance to my client, however, was barely noticed. No cost
increase for me.
My 2¢ worth. ;-)
John
**********************************************************************
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub: mailto:[email protected]
**********************************************************************
