filePro Wikipedia page

[GCC Consulting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial
> .com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.c
> elestial.com] On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:55 PM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: filePro Wikipedia page
> 
> This public service announcement was brought to you by Transpower:
> > Ken:  I think the Wikipedia article is too negative.  
> filePro has many 
> > more strengths than are listed.
> 
> I don't think the article on the whole is negative, I think 
> it's relatively factual.  
> 
> Now, the anti-fP article was interestingly negative.  I dunno 
> Jeremy Anderson from a hole in the ground (though the name 
> rings a bell...didn't he cause trouble on the list a year or 
> three ago?).  However, the link to the fP vs perl 
> page...that's where the real comedy comes in.  His perl 
> code...leaves a bit to be desired.
> 
> I particularly like this:
> 
> *****
>    For the real power for filepro, let's look and check to 
> see if we've
>    got a value between 23 and 26 in a numeric field:
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> if ($aa =~ "2[3-6]") { print "found a value between 23 and 
> 26\n"; } # yes, this could also be written as 'if (($aa < 27) 
> and ($aa > 22))'
> *****
> 
> Yes...except he -should- have written it the long way, 
> because his original notation would match 1237, 7249, etc.  
> He didn't bound the integer's in a string context.  Man, I 
> wouldn't want someone who claims to understand the power of 
> regex but codes like that trying to implement a virtual 
> firewall like I have.  :)
> 
> Another great one was the bit about catching the end of a 
> string's value for a match.  His convoluted example can be 
> reduced to two lines; the first would concatenate against "" 
> into an uncast dummy, and THEN you simply mid against the 
> last 3 characters.  The concatenation trick is something John 
> Esak, Nancy Palmquist, and a number of other people have 
> repeatedly shown me.  Anyone that's spent any time at all in 
> the community would know how to avoid the spaghetti he cited 
> for his fP example on that point.
> 
> His check for "red" in filePro parlance was actually 
> needlessly convoluted because fP is case insensitive.  I 
> thought it should match on any of those combinations with 
> only one check.  (I'd have to test to be sure.)  The
> -real- issue he should have pointed out was a stumbling block 
> was the lack of ability to (easily) compare a string and 
> check for word-boundary, which could be either whitespace 
> -or- beginning of line -or- end of line, which
> -can- be done with regex, although he seems to make only 
> limited use of boundary checking as cited with use of ^ in 
> -one- example and $ in another.
> 
> Back to his fun regex work:
> 
> *****
> if ($aa =~ "[pP][iI][NngG]") { print "found a pig or pin\n"; }
> *****
> 
> That's patently absurd coding; it also would catch words like 
> tarapin, pinball, pigment, etc.  Again, no boundary checking.
> 
> Some of his points (not all, as I noted above about the "last 
> three letters of a string" argument) may be valid, but IMHO, 
> his perl is sloppy as hell.
> Perhaps sloppier. :) Actually, his comments about perl more 
> accurately describe his coding style -in- perl than perl 
> itself.  Let's just say I'd never subcontract him to write 
> any segment of perl I wanted done efficiently and correctly. :)
> 
> When one knows something of fP -and- knows a GOOD deal about 
> something he cites as a counter to it, one draws the 
> conclusion that his opinion may be something he's entitled 
> to, but it's not necessarily worth the bytes used to express 
> it.  I mean, when you try to compare fP and perl, implying 
> competence in one, if it's obvious that you botched that one, 
> what makes you think they got the other right.  In fact, many 
> of us can readily demonstrate that at least some of his 
> points aren't even issues.
> 
> So I'm not actually seeing a problem.  He's only hanging 
> himself, if anyone actually knows the environments involved.  
> And it was reduced to a link, which the maintainers (much to 
> my respect) have left there.
> 
> As for lack of else and while, I agree that there are no 
> formal equivalents in fP.  However, with looping to labels 
> and conditional structuring, they're emulatable.  So are 
> for() loops that I've wanted for a long time, actually.  Now 
> a -valid- argument would be lack of foreach(), which is an 
> entirely different creature, and NOT easily emulated in fP.
> 
> I glanced over the section on Codd's laws and followed the 
> links to the laws.  The paradigm that those laws discover 
> isn't even the same one fP subscribes to, so of course it 
> doesn't follow the laws.  This is neither a negative nor a 
> positive, but simply neutrally factual.
> 
> Actually, there is a factual error in the Wiki article.  5.6 
> was released in 2006, not in 2005.  In fact, it was Q2 of 
> 2006, which means there's no way in hell it hit in 2005.
> 
> As for strengths, the quick screen design and quick report 
> development should both be in there, as they're the primary 
> areas in which fP excels.
> 
> (I think I signed up for a Wiki account at some point, but 
> I've never actually edited a page, and I don't feel like 
> starting today.  After reading several incomplete/inaccurate 
> entries for bands whose histories I know, I really don't 
> trust Wiki much anyway, and fail to see what the big deal is.)
> 
> mark->

Missed the fact that filePro can talk to ODBC databases since, if I recall
correctly at least 2003.

Didn't have time to read Anderson's article, yet.

Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting