Lefty's Linux Locking alog

[tony freehauf]

filepro-list-request at lists.celestial.com wrote:

>Send Filepro-list mailing list submissions to
>	filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	filepro-list-request at lists.celestial.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	filepro-list-owner at lists.celestial.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Filepro-list digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. RE: MY Eyes have been opened   (Butch Ammon)
>   2. Re: MY Eyes have been opened (Anthony Terrible)
>   3. Re: MY Eyes have been opened (Fairlight)
>   4. OT:  C++ "TopCoder" (Transpower)
>   5. Copy record syntax (Rodgers Hemer)
>   6. Re: Copy record syntax (Jean-Pierre A. Radley)
>   7. Lefty's Linux Locking alot (tony freehauf)
>   8. Re: Lefty's Linux Locking alot (Kenneth Brody)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:19:36 EST
>From: butch at rich.srcoils.com (Butch Ammon)
>Subject: RE: MY Eyes have been opened  
>To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>Message-ID: <200602091919.k19JJaE21473 at rich.srcoils.com>
>
>
>I guess if I could say one word it would be: "Daaaaaaaay-um"!!!!
>
><Major "diss" on filePro snipped>
>---------------------------------
>
>Butch Ammon
>Super Radiator Coils
>Richmond, VA
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:27:14 -0800
>From: "Anthony Terrible" <tony at vegena.net>
>Subject: Re: MY Eyes have been opened
>To: "File Pro List" <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID: <01aa01c62dae$d52be160$d202a8c0 at TonyT>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=original
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Alan Mazuti" <amazu at trusteeservicesinc.com>
>To: "'File Pro List'" <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:48 AM
>Subject: RE: MY Eyes have been opened
>
>
>  
>
>>Been using Filepro to read and write XML for a couple years now.  Not a 
>>big
>>deal and not hard to do.  I have been using filePro to manage and run a
>>large HTML based database for several years and it works great.  Yes 
>>FilePro
>>is a bit dated and I would like to see them put there resources in 
>>something
>>other than biometrics but hey it isn't my company and not my call.
>>fileproXML will be for someone like yourself that doesn't have the ability
>>to get past the basic filePro interface.
>>
>>
>>Top posted by design!
>>    
>>
>
>   Thanks, you only make my point more obvious.
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
>>[mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Anthony
>>Terrible
>>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:36 AM
>>To: File Pro List
>>Subject: RE: MY Eyes have been opened
>>
>> I have participated and watched this list over the weeks and I'm sorry 
>>but
>>
>>it just seems comical to me. While I will admit that most if not all of 
>>you
>>are better programmers than I, I can't for the life of me logically
>>understand why anyone is still using or recommending Filepro. More then
>>several people have said over the last few weeks that they are dropping
>>Filepro and all for the same reasons, it hasn't kept up with the trends 
>>and
>>most everything you want or need to do now is impossible or very difficult
>>to do with Filepro. Take just for instance Fptech saying they are working 
>>on
>>
>>implementing XML. Well XML has been around for years and people have
>>embraced the technology yet with Filepro it is difficult if not impossible
>>to do. And when will you be able to have FileproXML? 1 year, 2 years? And
>>where will technology be when it's ready for your use? Will XML be 
>>replaced
>>with something better? If so, you'll be left in the past once again. 
>>Filepro
>>
>>is always playing catch up. By the time something is implemented it's
>>already outdated and we're on to something bigger and better. We are all 
>>IT
>>professionals. That means to me that we are supposed to keep up with the
>>current technological trends and see where and how they fit in our or our
>>clients business and what is the benefit for them if any. It is hard for 
>>me
>>to believe that all the changes that have taken place over the last ten
>>years that Filepro has not kept up with, that all of you don't need or
>>wouldn't benefit from having or using any of this technology. Obviously
>>there are some instances that the new technology isn't needed but I would
>>imagine that in most business this just isn't the case.
>>
>> The arguments that all of you make of why Filepro is so good also make no
>>sense to me. Most if not all only point out poor programming practices not
>>about what the program its self is capable of. Let me just say there are
>>millions of examples of poor programming and it isn't limited to Windows
>>based programs or Oracle or MSSQL. Filepro has more than it's fair share 
>>or
>>poor programming. Not one of you have stated anything that Filepro can do
>>that can't be done using current programming languages and data bases
>>
>> You also make the argument of how fast it is to develop. I believe that's
>>because that is what you know. It has nothing to do with the langue or the
>>program. If you were as well versed in Pearl or PHP or any other 
>>programming
>>
>>language I think you would be just as good and as fast.
>>
>> I believe that Filepro limits you as a programmer and makes easy things
>>difficult if not impossible. The simplistic programming language  is a
>>hindrance not a blessing. As a programmer I want control over my program,
>>not what someone else wanted or thinks I want.
>>
>> You all state how fast Filepro is. I  just don't believe it. I have run
>>many many tests from drawing screens to doing data searches and Filepro
>>never wins. Time and time again Filepro is slower in all respects even 
>>when
>>it is running on a much faster machine. I challenge any of you to actually
>>run tests and see for your self.
>>
>> My take on the letter from FpTech on the direction of Filepro is that 
>>they
>>
>>just sold you down the river. They didn't commit to anything or even tell
>>you what direction they thought they were headed. But they did talk about
>>Biometrics, that's where they're banking their money is, not with keeping 
>>a
>>30 something database alive. I do not believe that Filepro has been good 
>>for
>>
>>us. We should have started moving away from it 10 years ago but didn't
>>because of a fear of the unknown. Now that move will be even harder and 
>>the
>>learning curve even greater. Filepro was great when it came out, probably
>>way ahead of it's time. But it has long since become stagnant.
>>
>> Read the list, every day more and more people are saying their companies
>>are moving away from Filepro. All the arguments in the world isn't going 
>>to
>>stop that, only a change in the program will and like I said, I believe
>>FpTech sold you down the river. I for one don't want to stay on a sinking
>>ship.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Filepro-list mailing list
>>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Filepro-list mailing list
>>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list 
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:27:43 -0500
>From: Fairlight <fairlite at fairlite.com>
>Subject: Re: MY Eyes have been opened
>To: List Filepro <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID: <20060209152743.A20561 at iglou.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>This public service announcement was brought to you by Laura Brody:
>  
>
>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:49:21 -0500, Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at bestweb.net>  
>>wrote:
>>    
>>
>[fPXML]
>  
>
>>>It depends on what you want it to do.  If your needs are simple,
>>>you could do it with filePro 1.0 using import/export ascii.
>>>
>>>I have to disagree with your "1 week project" comment, but you're
>>>allowed to think that if you wish.
>>>      
>>>
>>	If you wanted some XML code to do a given job, a week
>>would be enough. The thing is that filePro XML has to be a
>>generalized tool which helps you to quickly create whatever
>>you need no matter what the XML project looks like. This takes
>>time to design, code, test, test some more, document and finally
>>ship it to the paying customers.
>>    
>>
>
>Concur.  OneGate's XML parser was done in 31 hours--granted, I was coming
>up to speed from 4.1 to 5.0 features during that whole project, so it took
>me longer.  Probably should have been doable in under 10, really.  It's
>only about 80 lines of code.  Not that LoC has ever been a truly meaningful
>metric--there are instances when one line of usable code a day is good.
>But if I hadn't been so rusty and had to learn the new 5.0-isms, it would
>have gone a lot faster
>
>That said, I considered writing a generic XML import module over the last
>year--several times.  I estimated the hours at about 180 to get it "all
>there".  And that's in processing, not C--the latter being far more complex
>and demanding.
>
>I agree it would take a lot longer to do a proper, full XML import engine.
>
>Unfortunately, I approached two people that do a lot of XML when I last
>considered this project.  One said it would be great for the few people
>that specifically need it, and might be worth $1-2K for them.  The other
>said they wouldn't pay $500 for such a creature.  In the end, I looked at
>it, figured volume would be a problem, just as it has been with every other
>add-on, and dropped it when I didn't want to make $2.77/hr, figuring I'd
>sell like -maybe- one in the first six months at the $500 price.  It just
>seemed pointless.  So, *poof* went the project.  Especially since it'd be
>on spec, and I've decided not to do that for this community anymore.
>
>I don't know how many fPXML's fP-Tech will sell.  Nobody does.  But if it's
>going to be a year-long project, even assuming only 1/5 of that year is
>used to develop it around other priorities, I really think it won't even
>pay for its development time within the first year of release.  Probably
>not even close.  I hope I'm really wrong, but I have one of those feelings
>about this.
>
>That said--it stands a hell of a lot better chance of bolstering filePro
>than Biometrics does, IMHO.  It at least makes solid sense.
>
>mark->
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:40:40 -0500
>From: Transpower <transpower at aol.com>
>Subject: OT:  C++ "TopCoder"
>To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>Message-ID: <43EBB6D8.2030503 at aol.com>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
>
>
>"And that's in processing, not C--the latter being far more complex
>and demanding."--Fairlight
>
>Did any of you guys see the article on p. B1 of the Wall Stree Journal, 
>Wednesday?  It's about a programming contest in C++.  I've got a C++ 
>compiler and several books on C++, but--honestly--the language is just 
>too low-level for my taste.  I wonder if Ken or any other C++ coder here 
>has entered this contest and what it was like.
>
>Regards,
>Ron Satz
>Transpower Corporation, transpower at aol.com, www.transpowercorp.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:24:21 -0800
>From: Rodgers Hemer <r.hemer at w-link.net>
>Subject: Copy record syntax
>To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>Message-ID: <b2a6630c4cbaf64a205cbb3575a06e0f at w-link.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>I need to copy records from an existing file to a new file which has 
>several qualifiers. I want the records to go into one of the 
>qualifiers, not the base file which will remain empty.  Currently using 
>fP 4.8 but in the process of moving to 5.x.
>
>Can anyone suggest the proper syntax and/or procedure to make this 
>happen.  I believe that qualified file handling must be one of the most 
>under-documented sections in all of filePro literature.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Rodgers Hemer
>r.hemer at w-link.net 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:39:51 -0500
>From: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl at jpr.com>
>Subject: Re: Copy record syntax
>To: FilePro Mailing List <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID: <20060210003951.GA3493 at jpradley.jpr.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Rodgers Hemer propounded (on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:24:21PM -0800):
>| I need to copy records from an existing file to a new file which has 
>| several qualifiers. I want the records to go into one of the 
>| qualifiers, not the base file which will remain empty.  Currently using 
>| fP 4.8 but in the process of moving to 5.x.
>| 
>| Can anyone suggest the proper syntax and/or procedure to make this 
>| happen.  I believe that qualified file handling must be one of the most 
>| under-documented sections in all of filePro literature.
>
>You would be doing a lookup to newfile to get a free record wherein to
>copy.  In this case, do your lookup to newfile at qualifier.
>
>  
>
hi experts
thanks for the input
Ken refered to SEGV's or the like. I don't know what this is. Could you 
advise.
thanks
old tony