relational fields and @rf

[Christopher Yerry]

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:06:46 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
Subject: Re: Associated fields and @AF
To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Message-ID: <20050703150646.H27492 at cgi.jachomes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0700, Christopher Yerry wrote:
>    I find it difficult to believe their are "file Pro" only shops around.
>    I  have  converted many to .net but there are others that I don't want
>    to  mess  with  (their  is too much code / not worth the change). If I
>    take every table and make it relational (that's real relational not fp
>    related  fields  relational)  I  can  then  use that data in any other
>    environment.  The  related field mentality does not work anywhere else
>    and  if  we  want  filePro to still exist it has to be able to be used
>    across the board - that's a relational table solution!

-Anyone who spends time on this list knows I'm not fpTech's number 1
-cheerleader these days.

-But I'll take issue with your characterization here, Chris.

-"Relational" means a lot of things.  But it's not completely
-unreasonable, as I believe you think, to apply it to what filePro
-permits you to do.  Yes, you have to use procedural code to walk
-through joins, instead of the engine and the language doing it for you,
-and yes, that's as often a bug as it it a feature.  But the fact that
-the engine and the language do *not* simulate joins for you isn't
-enough to completely discount filePro.

-Most SQL toolsets don't handle header-detail UI creation well, either,
-until you get up over $5k (for the commercial ones, at least; I don't
-know what state Rekall is in these days).  (And no, I don't consider
-Access a toolset.  :-)

-Cheers,
-- jra
 
Boy have we digressed
 
1 msdn is free and will do 90% of what sql will do
and its free
 
Access is not a database it is an evil curse (and yes Microsoft can take my certification away for that one)
 
The point of starting this was
 
filePro is a set of tools (for our previous C commenter(sp?) if there was no C there would be no filepro) it is not a language it does not even have an else !! it is not structured. the OS hands you each record any you process it. It is a set of tools !!!
 
If you want something fast filepro is a good solution. but The data has no security !!!! the
database structure can be hacked by a 5 year old. Its fast in its LIMITED set of what it can do. 
 
I have used filePro for 15 years. In fact I make a lot of money with it because no one seems to know how to use it and for that I am thankful I know it. 
but
I would not trust my fortune 500 company to filepro on the web. I might trust my dentists office but not a large application.
 
Besides
- It requires record locks (I have not used them in any program in 14 years. Their are better ways to handle this)
- It locks records and cannot run reports (yes I know you can shut it off but it could cause a problem if it is supposed to be locked)
- it was written in 1977 then it was great but no one has brought it into the 21st century
- Maybe I should write filePro .net  ... hm-mm
 
(a 25 user license of SQL2000 is only $1500)
 
I am not a filepro basher. I do believe @rf is an improper solution and should never be used. It encourages bad programming practices. Common code for multiple tables would be a huge step up. Multiple copies of the same code is suicide!!!! and their is no other way of doing it!!
 
 
Christopher Yerry

 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20050704/a3730a1a/attachment.html