I agree with your logic, John. A well-spoken and thoughtful reply. I also used ALP for many years; back in the ‘dinosaur’ days before list boxes were not even thought of. Seemed for many years 4D was content to leave that aspect of the UI to ALP, which it filled most admirably. I built a significant amount of my code library on ALP. It served a vital role in my 4D apps for many years.
However, after 4Dv14 arrived, I re-engineered my DBs to eliminate ALP. ALP licensing had been changed so it was ‘attached’ to a 4D license a few years before, and it became expensive to me. It took a few days because it was quite integrated into my ‘libraries’ but I managed to replace it all satisfactorily, including my customization code that allowed reconfiguration of an ALP during runtime (and saving the config, etc.). Now I have a whole new ORDA/entity selection codebase (greatly simplified, I might add) founded upon the use listBoxes. I can adjust the columns & all the appearance options of the listBox area using my own GUI, at run-time. Even the method they run. Considering that Entity selections have been available for so many months now, I am surprised to learn that they are not supported in ALP yet. But I imagine it is a huge undertaking to support it, especially as a plug-in. I suppose another consideration in the debate may be if a developer is going to use "4D for iOS". I haven’t ever checked that out myself — I plan to but need to get some projects finished up first. I don’t know if it supports listBoxes. But either way I would imagine that ALP would not be available for such projects (as they become Xcode). I hope all the best for the publishers of ALP, but I can’t see any reason for me to jump back on the wagon. — Chris > On May 4, 2020, at 4:48 PM, JOHN BAUGHMAN via 4D_Tech <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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] > ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) New Forum: https://discuss.4D.com Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
