> >Kevin and I spoke about this topic in person. > > > >The answer is: His interest is in how he could take his product "REAL > >Basic" and make it more attractive to the growing # of VFP users who are > >unhappy with our current situation, and are looking for a cross platform > >alternative in a product that is still actively supported and growing. > > Speaking for just myself of course.... > 1) have a built-in data engine like VFP does. E.g. cursors, etc. > 2) provide functions like SEEK(). SQL is nice, but it's > cumbersome for some > situations. We don't want ADO bullcrap (or whatever MS calls it now) > 3) provide a DB option - again, built in. A file-based one > like VFP is > fine. If a C/S and file-based could be made, then great. But > the ability to > store data locally - between sessions - during session - etc. > has been an > incredible benefit of VFP. > 4) Probably goes without saying, and he probably already has > it, but need > to be able to connect to other DBs. ODBC is fine. The hell > with MS and > their constantly changing 'data access' standards. (I still > can't believe > the whole industry didn't turn on MS when they 'stopped' > supported ODBC. > Jerks). > 5) Cross-platform - I think you said it's already that way, > so good to go > there. > 6) Need a good IDE (yeah, it's mainly eye-candy, but taking > away the tedium > is a good way to attrack developers - hopefully he already has). > 7) Have some way for easy, or at least non-complicated, way to make > applications web-enabled, or even run-in-browser. Personally, > I think the > run-in-browser will eventually take a backseat to 'smart' desktop > applications that communicate over the web in the background. > The never > ending security holes, poor performance, and lack of truly rich user > interface options make browser-apps really suck (again IMO). > > > Well that's off the top of my head. There's more. But the > above is what > strikes me as the main things.
I agree with everything you've said, Charlie, but would add one item: 8. Must include a "code translator" to accept existing applications. Okay, I'd accept less-then-perfect, given the other benefits, but something that gets us in the ballpark without a re-write. Tough nut, yeah, but we just can't go wasting all the time and effort put into VFP. Bill > -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
