Alaska Software Inc. - Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
Username: Password:
AuthorTopic: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
Adam MesterYour thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:07:50 +0100
Hello Xbase++ 2.0 users!

Our company currently using 1.9 version of Xbase++ and now we are in a
dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0 - in a previous newsletter this year
Alaska wrote that they are working on it.

- What do you think - was 2.0 worth buying it? 
- How good are the built in SQL features? We are planning to use SQL instead
of dBase - do you still recommend using SQLExpress?
- Once I read that 2.0 has a new IDE and GUI designer but now I can't find
anything about it on the website - Am I wrong? If no, how good are these?

You can send your thoughts directly to mester.adam (at) gmx.com
thanks in advance for your reply 
César Calvo Re: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:24:51 +0100
Hello Adam.
Alaska Xbase 2.X is really good.
I work with this and the libraries of ds-Datasoft together with SqlExpress.
All products very completes and professionals.
Kinds Regards.
César.

"Adam Mester" escribió en el mensaje de 
noticias:6ca10d01$18417a6c$48f2f@news.alaska-software.com...

Hello Xbase++ 2.0 users!

Our company currently using 1.9 version of Xbase++ and now we are in a
dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0 - in a previous newsletter this year
Alaska wrote that they are working on it.

- What do you think - was 2.0 worth buying it?
- How good are the built in SQL features? We are planning to use SQL instead
of dBase - do you still recommend using SQLExpress?
- Once I read that 2.0 has a new IDE and GUI designer but now I can't find
anything about it on the website - Am I wrong? If no, how good are these?

You can send your thoughts directly to mester.adam (at) gmx.com
thanks in advance for your reply 
Hubert BrandelRe: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:54:55 +0100
I use 2.00.xxx sinze months by now, it fixes some errors I had in 1.90, 
but not too much (in my case). I do not see any errors or code break 
with it.
After a time working with the IDE I got the better debugger under 
control, realy very very better than the old one.

 > ... we are in a dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0

they are working on the 3.0 since years ...
and 2.00 is still not ready, but useable.
I did order the 2.00 with prof sub.

 > How good are the built in SQL features?
 > We are planning to use SQL instead

The question is, can you restrict your app to an OLD PostGreSQL Server ?
The use the 8.? version only (as I understood), if not or for 
compatibility with 1.90 use SQLExpress 

Yes I would recommend SQLExpress - because ...
- it works since years
- it can use every SQL Server
- I don't want to use the old clipper database functions with SQL

The documentation in Xbase 2.00 is still not complete and on the new 
features still not too good by now - some peoble does get some infos out 
of code or other examples, but I prefere read the help file 

It has a IDE with project manager and debugger, and it works, but the 
GUI designer is the same as it was in 1.90 XPPFD ...
An NO ! It does NOT SUPPORT ctrl+Z (one step back) ... the biggest 
problem with it - since years !

The real GUI designer was shifted to Xbase++ 3.0 some years ago
- working on does not means it is available in the near future.

I still have papers from the devcon 2007 where the SQL parts was "nearly 
ready" ...

Xbase 2.00.xxx works, SQLexpress works and I do not want to mix old 
Clipper Style with new SQL database servers.

I (better my company for me) ordered the 2.00 with prof sub and use it now.

Am 14.12.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Adam Mester:
> Hello Xbase++ 2.0 users!
>
> Our company currently using 1.9 version of Xbase++ and now we are in a
> dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0 - in a previous newsletter this year
> Alaska wrote that they are working on it.
>
> - What do you think - was 2.0 worth buying it?
> - How good are the built in SQL features? We are planning to use SQL instead
> of dBase - do you still recommend using SQLExpress?
> - Once I read that 2.0 has a new IDE and GUI designer but now I can't find
> anything about it on the website - Am I wrong? If no, how good are these?
>
> You can send your thoughts directly to mester.adam (at) gmx.com
> thanks in advance for your reply 
>
Hubert BrandelRe: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:01:46 +0100
Am 29.12.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Hubert Brandel:
> it fixes some errors I had in 1.90, but not too much (in my case)

I tried to say, that I did not have many errors in Xbase++ 1.90 that are 
importand for me, one error was with fseek() and files over 4 GB,
that error was solved in Xbase 2.00
Jan EscholtRe: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:52:45 +0100
Hubert,

you are wrong. Of yourse the workbench supports CRTL-Z. It allready did 
with the VX years ago.

Jan

Am 29.12.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Hubert Brandel:
> I use 2.00.xxx sinze months by now, it fixes some errors I had in 1.90,
> but not too much (in my case). I do not see any errors or code break
> with it.
> After a time working with the IDE I got the better debugger under
> control, realy very very better than the old one.
>
>> ... we are in a dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0
>
> they are working on the 3.0 since years ...
> and 2.00 is still not ready, but useable.
> I did order the 2.00 with prof sub.
>
>> How good are the built in SQL features?
>> We are planning to use SQL instead
>
> The question is, can you restrict your app to an OLD PostGreSQL Server ?
> The use the 8.? version only (as I understood), if not or for
> compatibility with 1.90 use SQLExpress 
>
> Yes I would recommend SQLExpress - because ...
> - it works since years
> - it can use every SQL Server
> - I don't want to use the old clipper database functions with SQL
>
> The documentation in Xbase 2.00 is still not complete and on the new
> features still not too good by now - some peoble does get some infos out
> of code or other examples, but I prefere read the help file 
>
> It has a IDE with project manager and debugger, and it works, but the
> GUI designer is the same as it was in 1.90 XPPFD ...
> An NO ! It does NOT SUPPORT ctrl+Z (one step back) ... the biggest
> problem with it - since years !
>
> The real GUI designer was shifted to Xbase++ 3.0 some years ago
> - working on does not means it is available in the near future.
>
> I still have papers from the devcon 2007 where the SQL parts was "nearly
> ready" ...
>
> Xbase 2.00.xxx works, SQLexpress works and I do not want to mix old
> Clipper Style with new SQL database servers.
>
> I (better my company for me) ordered the 2.00 with prof sub and use it now.
>
> Am 14.12.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Adam Mester:
>> Hello Xbase++ 2.0 users!
>>
>> Our company currently using 1.9 version of Xbase++ and now we are in a
>> dilemma: buying 2.0 or wait for the 3.0 - in a previous newsletter
>> this year
>> Alaska wrote that they are working on it.
>>
>> - What do you think - was 2.0 worth buying it?
>> - How good are the built in SQL features? We are planning to use SQL
>> instead
>> of dBase - do you still recommend using SQLExpress?
>> - Once I read that 2.0 has a new IDE and GUI designer but now I can't
>> find
>> anything about it on the website - Am I wrong? If no, how good are these?
>>
>> You can send your thoughts directly to mester.adam (at) gmx.com
>> thanks in advance for your reply 
>>
>
Hubert BrandelRe: Your thoughts about Xbase++ 2.0 - still worth buyin it?
on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:13:37 +0100
Am 29.12.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Jan Escholt:
> Hubert,
>
> you are wrong. Of yourse the workbench supports CRTL-Z. It allready did
> with the VX years ago.

Hi Jan,

I wrote ...

"but the GUI designer is the same as it was in 1.90 XPPFD ...
An NO ! It does NOT SUPPORT ctrl+Z (one step back) ..."

This does mean that XppFD does not support ctrl+Z ...
not in 1.90 and 2.00 - I did not write about the workshell.