I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's "true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.
Coincidentally enough, the same issue of PC Magazine has a comparative review of five Xbase development systems, including FoxPro 2.0, Clipper, and dBASE III/VI. FoxPro won hands down! From the Google Books left menu, search for "Xbase Development Systems" in the same issue. Makes for very nostalgia-inducing reading. Mike -----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gene Wirchenko Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NF] Arago At 10:59 2016-12-19, "Michael Glassman" <[email protected]> wrote: >Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0, >which was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked >such a complete compiler. So what made its compiler more complete? [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** 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.
