http://www.alaska-software.com/
[quote]
RC-1 availability is anticipated for second half of October 2005
...
64Bit Windows is officially supported as a platform.
...
it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
[/quote]

Roadmap was also updated. 
http://www.alaska-software.com/products/roadmap.shtm

Servus, Roman

roman modic wrote:
> http://www.alaska-software.com/
> [quote]
> RC-1 availability is anticipated for second half of October 2005
> ...
> 64Bit Windows is officially supported as a platform.
> ...
> it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
> [/quote]
> 
> Roadmap was also updated. 
> http://www.alaska-software.com/products/roadmap.shtm
> 
> Servus, Roman 
> 
> 

Too little too late.. we're already switching to .NET

Hello.

"C-Services Holland b.v." <csh@csh4u.nl> wrote in message 
news:fUCy$6w0FHA.6152@S15147418...
> roman modic wrote:
>> it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
>> [/quote]
>>
>
> Too little too late.. we're already switching to .NET

Using C#?

Roman

I'm using VB.NET but I have used C# extensively.

In most cases the difference is syntax only.

Mike

"roman modic" <modicr@astral-it.com> wrote in message 
news:Q%23hp2Cx0FHA.6152@S15147418...
> Hello.
>
> "C-Services Holland b.v." <csh@csh4u.nl> wrote in message 
> news:fUCy$6w0FHA.6152@S15147418...
>> roman modic wrote:
>>> it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>
>> Too little too late.. we're already switching to .NET
>
> Using C#?
>
> Roman
>

I'm using VB.NET but I have used C# extensively.

In most cases the difference is syntax only.

Mike


"roman modic" <modicr@astral-it.com> wrote in message 
news:Q%23hp2Cx0FHA.6152@S15147418...
> Hello.
>
> "C-Services Holland b.v." <csh@csh4u.nl> wrote in message 
> news:fUCy$6w0FHA.6152@S15147418...
>> roman modic wrote:
>>> it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>
>> Too little too late.. we're already switching to .NET
>
> Using C#?
>
> Roman
>

Hi Mike,

I guess that means you have to do everything twice to make
sure you get one message across? 

(just a joke...)

Robert

"Robert Major" <major@symetric.ca> wrote in message 
news:D3$LgP10FHA.3104@S15147418...
> Hi Mike,
>
> I guess that means you have to do everything twice to make
> sure you get one message across? 
>
> (just a joke...)
>
> Robert
>
>

roman modic wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> "C-Services Holland b.v." <csh@csh4u.nl> wrote in message 
> news:fUCy$6w0FHA.6152@S15147418...
> 
>>roman modic wrote:
>>
>>>it is possible to use .NET components in Xbase++ applications
>>>[/quote]
>>>
>>
>>Too little too late.. we're already switching to .NET
> 
> 
> Using C#?
> 
> Roman 
> 
> 

VB for the meantime. But at least I got a decent IDE, debugger, 
formdesigner.. all the things Alaska lacks. No way in hell I would ever 
concider Xbase++ for new applications. We only used it to convert our 
ancient clipper to windows. Which in hindsight used so much time we 
might as well have redesigned it in a language that does have a proper 
IDE, debugger, formdesigner and whatnot.

Rinze, (it is you is it ?)

> VB for the meantime. But at least I got a decent IDE, debugger,
> formdesigner.. all the things Alaska lacks. No way in hell I would ever
> concider Xbase++ for new applications. We only used it to convert our
> ancient clipper to windows. Which in hindsight used so much time we
> might as well have redesigned it in a language that does have a proper
> IDE, debugger, formdesigner and whatnot.

WOW, this is what I call an agressive kind of having a discussion.

- The Xbase formdesigner is a little...
- The debugger is not the best there is.
- The whatnot is not present in Xbase++, it's part of BASIC and it's
  derivatives, and should remain there 

but

What about the capability of the language to capture your design goal in
proper and structured code?  Get used to trial and error methods, because
there are very few statements in M$-BASIC-s without severe bugs.

For instance:
Dim barcode as string
Dim result as string
barcode = "010D87654321"
result = Mid(barcode, 4, 1)

Believe it or not, it sometimes produces a runtime (overflow) error.

Get used to millions of lines of code, because the BASIC language
rewards copying and pasting entire subroutines.

Anyway, I hope you will be happy using DOTNET, but I think
sooner or later you will want and grow beyond.

Regards,
Frans Vermeulen

That looks like VB6 code to me.

I wouldn't use Mid() in .NET

Mike

"Frans Vermeulen" <fransv@visspec.nl> wrote in message 
news:GgFLCv80FHA.7860@S15147418...
> Rinze, (it is you is it ?)
>
>> VB for the meantime. But at least I got a decent IDE, debugger,
>> formdesigner.. all the things Alaska lacks. No way in hell I would ever
>> concider Xbase++ for new applications. We only used it to convert our
>> ancient clipper to windows. Which in hindsight used so much time we
>> might as well have redesigned it in a language that does have a proper
>> IDE, debugger, formdesigner and whatnot.
>
> WOW, this is what I call an agressive kind of having a discussion.
>
> - The Xbase formdesigner is a little...
> - The debugger is not the best there is.
> - The whatnot is not present in Xbase++, it's part of BASIC and it's
>  derivatives, and should remain there 
>
> but
>
> What about the capability of the language to capture your design goal in
> proper and structured code?  Get used to trial and error methods, because
> there are very few statements in M$-BASIC-s without severe bugs.
>
> For instance:
> Dim barcode as string
> Dim result as string
> barcode = "010D87654321"
> result = Mid(barcode, 4, 1)
>
> Believe it or not, it sometimes produces a runtime (overflow) error.
>
> Get used to millions of lines of code, because the BASIC language
> rewards copying and pasting entire subroutines.
>
> Anyway, I hope you will be happy using DOTNET, but I think
> sooner or later you will want and grow beyond.
>
> Regards,
> Frans Vermeulen
>
>

Sorry,

To clarify,

Isn't Mid one of the visual basic 6 compatibility functions for .NET?

Mike


"Mike Grace" <nospammike.grace@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
news:HW55uY%230FHA.7080@S15147418...
> That looks like VB6 code to me.
>
> I wouldn't use Mid() in .NET
>
> Mike
>
> "Frans Vermeulen" <fransv@visspec.nl> wrote in message 
> news:GgFLCv80FHA.7860@S15147418...
>> Rinze, (it is you is it ?)
>>
>>> VB for the meantime. But at least I got a decent IDE, debugger,
>>> formdesigner.. all the things Alaska lacks. No way in hell I would ever
>>> concider Xbase++ for new applications. We only used it to convert our
>>> ancient clipper to windows. Which in hindsight used so much time we
>>> might as well have redesigned it in a language that does have a proper
>>> IDE, debugger, formdesigner and whatnot.
>>
>> WOW, this is what I call an agressive kind of having a discussion.
>>
>> - The Xbase formdesigner is a little...
>> - The debugger is not the best there is.
>> - The whatnot is not present in Xbase++, it's part of BASIC and it's
>>  derivatives, and should remain there 
>>
>> but
>>
>> What about the capability of the language to capture your design goal in
>> proper and structured code?  Get used to trial and error methods, because
>> there are very few statements in M$-BASIC-s without severe bugs.
>>
>> For instance:
>> Dim barcode as string
>> Dim result as string
>> barcode = "010D87654321"
>> result = Mid(barcode, 4, 1)
>>
>> Believe it or not, it sometimes produces a runtime (overflow) error.
>>
>> Get used to millions of lines of code, because the BASIC language
>> rewards copying and pasting entire subroutines.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope you will be happy using DOTNET, but I think
>> sooner or later you will want and grow beyond.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans Vermeulen
>>
>>
>
>

Frans Vermeulen wrote:

> Rinze, (it is you is it ?)

yeah, my sig got lost somehow 

> 
> WOW, this is what I call an agressive kind of having a discussion.
> 
> - The Xbase formdesigner is a little...

crap. Compared to the visual studio designer it's awfully awkward.

> - The debugger is not the best there is.

Indeed. When you're debugging and have a few things open it's like 
debugging through a mailslot (yeah yeah, mode 130,80). Some 5 years ago 
I mentioned something about seperate windows for watches etc.. I was 
told to wait for Visual Xbase. It still states on the website: " Visual 
Xbase++ will be generally available in the second half of 2004. Xbase++" 
or you can mail them for a prerelease. I'm not going to beta something 
like this. We're done waiting.

> - The whatnot is not present in Xbase++, it's part of BASIC and it's
>   derivatives, and should remain there 

What.. like built in access to all kinds of datasources including DBF 
out of the box without the use of a plethora of third party plugins you 
have to pay for. I'm sorry, but DBF and all it's problems are (for me) a 
thing of the past.

> 
> but
> 
> What about the capability of the language to capture your design goal in
> proper and structured code?  Get used to trial and error methods, because
> there are very few statements in M$-BASIC-s without severe bugs.
> 

I write plenty of structured code in VB. Use option strict and option 
explicit to enforce some rules. If anything I've used trial and error 
methods programming Xbase(++). And it's MS not M$, just like it's Alaska 
and not Ala$ka. (personal peev)

> For instance:
> Dim barcode as string
> Dim result as string
> barcode = "010D87654321"
> result = Mid(barcode, 4, 1)
> 
> Believe it or not, it sometimes produces a runtime (overflow) error.

We have a major application with a fairly large use base here and I've 
never gotten an error on something like this (vb5). Besides, that code 
is vb5/6. In .NET you'd do something like

result = barcode.substring(4,1)

> Get used to millions of lines of code, because the BASIC language
> rewards copying and pasting entire subroutines.

Hmm you should take a look at our old app in Clipper. It is completely 
based on C/P.. change a few varnames and voila, new routine. This has 
far more to do with the programmer that created the program than the 
language itself. How is BASIC more rewarding than Xbase in this case?

If a developer can't think in subroutines and functions, that's not a 
fault of the language.

> Anyway, I hope you will be happy using DOTNET, but I think
> sooner or later you will want and grow beyond.

Well, I can do more with .NET than I can with Xbase and I can do it much 
faster, so does that mean I've grown beyond Xbase? And what do you 
concider a step up from .NET? What can't I do that I can do with that 
next step?

Sure Alaska provided us with the means to make our old software Windows 
(compatible). But choosing Xbase++ for a new project.... never. It's far 
to clumsy and limited for that, especially if you concider the 'out of 
the box' experience.

> 
> Regards,
> Frans Vermeulen
> 
> 

regards,

Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v

Really couldn't have put it any better myself.

Mike

"C-Services Holland b.v." <csh@csh4u.nl> wrote in message 
news:rIdLxDK1FHA.3104@S15147418...
> Frans Vermeulen wrote:
>
>> Rinze, (it is you is it ?)
>
> yeah, my sig got lost somehow 
>
>>
>> WOW, this is what I call an agressive kind of having a discussion.
>>
>> - The Xbase formdesigner is a little...
>
> crap. Compared to the visual studio designer it's awfully awkward.
>
>> - The debugger is not the best there is.
>
> Indeed. When you're debugging and have a few things open it's like 
> debugging through a mailslot (yeah yeah, mode 130,80). Some 5 years ago I 
> mentioned something about seperate windows for watches etc.. I was told to 
> wait for Visual Xbase. It still states on the website: " Visual Xbase++ 
> will be generally available in the second half of 2004. Xbase++" or you 
> can mail them for a prerelease. I'm not going to beta something like this. 
> We're done waiting.
>
>> - The whatnot is not present in Xbase++, it's part of BASIC and it's
>>   derivatives, and should remain there 
>
> What.. like built in access to all kinds of datasources including DBF out 
> of the box without the use of a plethora of third party plugins you have 
> to pay for. I'm sorry, but DBF and all it's problems are (for me) a thing 
> of the past.
>
>>
>> but
>>
>> What about the capability of the language to capture your design goal in
>> proper and structured code?  Get used to trial and error methods, because
>> there are very few statements in M$-BASIC-s without severe bugs.
>>
>
> I write plenty of structured code in VB. Use option strict and option 
> explicit to enforce some rules. If anything I've used trial and error 
> methods programming Xbase(++). And it's MS not M$, just like it's Alaska 
> and not Ala$ka. (personal peev)
>
>> For instance:
>> Dim barcode as string
>> Dim result as string
>> barcode = "010D87654321"
>> result = Mid(barcode, 4, 1)
>>
>> Believe it or not, it sometimes produces a runtime (overflow) error.
>
> We have a major application with a fairly large use base here and I've 
> never gotten an error on something like this (vb5). Besides, that code is 
> vb5/6. In .NET you'd do something like
>
> result = barcode.substring(4,1)
>
>> Get used to millions of lines of code, because the BASIC language
>> rewards copying and pasting entire subroutines.
>
> Hmm you should take a look at our old app in Clipper. It is completely 
> based on C/P.. change a few varnames and voila, new routine. This has far 
> more to do with the programmer that created the program than the language 
> itself. How is BASIC more rewarding than Xbase in this case?
>
> If a developer can't think in subroutines and functions, that's not a 
> fault of the language.
>
>> Anyway, I hope you will be happy using DOTNET, but I think
>> sooner or later you will want and grow beyond.
>
> Well, I can do more with .NET than I can with Xbase and I can do it much 
> faster, so does that mean I've grown beyond Xbase? And what do you 
> concider a step up from .NET? What can't I do that I can do with that next 
> step?
>
> Sure Alaska provided us with the means to make our old software Windows 
> (compatible). But choosing Xbase++ for a new project.... never. It's far 
> to clumsy and limited for that, especially if you concider the 'out of the 
> box' experience.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans Vermeulen
>>
>>
>
> regards,
>
> -- 
> Rinze van Huizen
> C-Services Holland b.v