On Nov 15, 2016, Ed Glassgow wrote:
> There have been efforts at pure graphical programming software. In fact,
> there was a database program that was drag and drop in the relatively early
> Mac days. I wish that I could remember what it was called, but time has
> wiped that from my memory
David Adams wrote:
>For those of you that pass parameters, order can matter. It's been, what,
>30 years now I've been using 4D (!) and I *still* have to double-check
>Position and Find in array
>
>Position(Needle;Haystack)
>Find in array(Haystack;Needle)
Wow! These could be useful. I just don't
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Ed Glassgow wrote:
> There have been efforts at pure graphical programming software. In fact,
> there was a database program that was drag and drop in the relatively early
> Mac days. I wish that I could remember what it was called, but
Text-based coding would work better for me if the handling or ordering of
language elements where consistent across languages. Nouns, verbs, subjects,
objects, modifiers, etc. take different positions or ordering in different
languages. My native language is English and my only backup is Latin.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Ed Glassgow wrote:
> There have been efforts at pure graphical programming software. In fact,
> there was a database program that was drag and drop in the relatively early
> Mac days. I wish that I could remember what it was called, but
Was it 4th Dimension where you could commit to a graphical approach or a text
approach, or did Omnis give that choice in the early days?
Keith - CDI
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Ed Glassgow wrote:
>
> There have been efforts at pure graphical programming software. In
There have been efforts at pure graphical programming software. In fact, there
was a database program that was drag and drop in the relatively early Mac days.
I wish that I could remember what it was called, but time has wiped that from
my memory banks. It was very cumbersome to accomplish
As far as software “developers” are concerned, I may be an extreme example of
someone who is bothered by this type of learning. I simply don’t have the
patience/attention span/(motivation?) to devote the time and effort to the
repetitive (to me, boring to the point of stifling) behaviors
So, so true.
Without further evidence I'm not going to plead guilty to wrapping a single
4D command. But a 'Relate' method with clearly marked parameters for
$many_field_p, $one_field_p helps me avoid remembering the syntax for Query
with Whoosit, Selection from Whatsit or something like that. I
On November 15, 2016 at 8:14:23 AM, bob.mil...@parker.com
(bob.mil...@parker.com) wrote:
There has not been a single time
when I've been able to remember which field (relating or related) to use
with Relate One, Relate One Selection, Relate Many, and Relate Many
Selection. Something short
> For those of you that pass parameters, order can matter. It's been, what,
> 30 years now I've been using 4D (!) and I *still* have to double-check
> Position and Find in array
>
> Position(Needle;Haystack)
> Find in array(Haystack;Needle)
>
> So, just thinking, be kind to yourself...find a
Wrap one to look like the other :)
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:26:47 +1100, David Adams wrote:
> For those of you that pass parameters, order can matter. It's been, what,
> 30 years now I've been using 4D (!) and I *still* have to double-check
> Position and Find in array
>
>
For those of you that pass parameters, order can matter. It's been, what,
30 years now I've been using 4D (!) and I *still* have to double-check
Position and Find in array
Position(Needle;Haystack)
Find in array(Haystack;Needle)
So, just thinking, be kind to yourself...find a pattern and follow
13 matches
Mail list logo