> >>I just read that Panorama recently released v4.0 (see
>>><http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0107/10.panorama.shtml>).
>>>
>>>Given that both MC and Panorama are RAM-based, anyone have insights into why
>>>building databases in native MC is discouraged?
>>>
>>
>>I am not an expert but you are looking at apples and oranges. You
>>can build small databases in MC with no problems, but I think that
>>the card paradigm does not work well for large databases (like
>>millions of records).
>
>I haven't tried millions of records, but I wrote a program in MC
>last year that stored data as lines of text in a variable, took a
>query argument, and filtered the data 1000 lines at a time. It was
>extremely fast, and certainly would handle tens of thousands of
>records. From a speed standpoint I don't think millions would have
>been a problem, so it's really a question of how efficiently
>MetaCard would handle a multi-megabyte variable. (or changing the
>method to read data out of a text file and filter it)
Yes, of course one can use MC as a database, particularly a flat one
and it can perform quite well for many projects. The original poster
asked a very generic question, so it was a generic answer. I used to
use Hypercard for a moderate-size databases, flat as well as
relational, but once I switched to using a true database engine with
HyperCard and now MetaCard (as opposed to using FileMaker or
Panorama), I found that many things are easier and faster for many
projects. I should have made that point more clear. MetaCard with a
database engine (like Valentina or Jovis) is a third solution, smack
in the middle between using only MetaCard or only a database program.
Each option has its pros and cons. I use all three depending on the
project.
>But yes, obviously Panorama is designed as a database. There's no
>doubt it does database-y things better.
>
>As a trivial aside, Panorama is a really odd beast -- it was
>originally written for some odd machine like a PDP or some such, in
>a low level language (assembly, or something native to the odd
>machine, can't remember). Instead of porting it to the Mac, the
>author wrote a virtual machine on the Mac, so the original code
>could run. I spoke with the author a few years back when he was
>starting the port to the PC, and he wasn't taking that as an
>opportunity to start over. Instead, he was porting the virtual
>machine to the PC(!)
Interesting. I actually used to use Panorama a few years ago, but
FileMaker dominated majority of my projects and I just gave up on
Panorama at some point.
Robert
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
