<DIV>
<DIV>Message: 3<BR>Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:06:46 -0400<BR>From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <<A href="http://us.f304.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jra@baylink.com&YY=36050&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b"><FONT color=#003399>jra@baylink.com</FONT></A>><BR>Subject: Re: Associated fields and @AF<BR>To: <A href="http://us.f304.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=filepro-list@lists.celestial.com&YY=36050&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b"><FONT color=#003399>filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</FONT></A><BR>Message-ID: <<A href="http://us.f304.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=20050703150646.H27492@cgi.jachomes.com&YY=36050&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b"><FONT color=#003399>20050703150646.H27492@cgi.jachomes.com</FONT></A>><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<BR><BR>On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0700, Christopher Yerry wrote:<BR>> I find it difficult to believe their
are "file Pro" only shops around.<BR>> I have converted many to .net but there are others that I don't want<BR>> to mess with (their is too much code / not worth the change). If I<BR>> take every table and make it relational (that's real relational not fp<BR>> related fields relational) I can then use that data in any other<BR>> environment. The related field mentality does not work anywhere else<BR>> and if we want filePro to still exist it has to be able to be used<BR>> across the board - that's a relational table solution!<BR><BR>-Anyone who spends time on this list knows I'm not fpTech's number 1<BR>-cheerleader these days.<BR><BR>-But I'll take issue with your characterization here, Chris.<BR><BR>-"Relational" means a lot of
things. But it's not completely<BR>-unreasonable, as I believe you think, to apply it to what filePro<BR>-permits you to do. Yes, you have to use procedural code to walk<BR>-through joins, instead of the engine and the language doing it for you,<BR>-and yes, that's as often a bug as it it a feature. But the fact that<BR>-the engine and the language do *not* simulate joins for you isn't<BR>-enough to completely discount filePro.<BR><BR>-Most SQL toolsets don't handle header-detail UI creation well, either,<BR>-until you get up over $5k (for the commercial ones, at least; I don't<BR>-know what state Rekall is in these days). (And no, I don't consider<BR>-Access a toolset. :-)<BR><BR>-Cheers,<BR>-- jra</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Boy have we digressed</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1 msdn is free and will do 90% of what sql will do</DIV>
<DIV>and its free</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Access is not a database it is an evil curse (and yes Microsoft can take my certification away for that one)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The point of starting this was</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 !!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you want something fast filepro is a good solution. but The data has no security !!!! the</DIV>
<DIV>database structure can be hacked by a 5 year old. Its fast in its LIMITED set of what it can do. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV>but</DIV>
<DIV>I would not trust my fortune 500 company to filepro on the web. I might trust my dentists office but not a large application.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Besides</DIV>
<DIV>- It requires record locks (I have not used them in any program in 14 years. Their are better ways to handle this)</DIV>
<DIV>- 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)</DIV>
<DIV>- it was written in 1977 then it was great but no one has brought it into the 21st century</DIV>
<DIV>- Maybe I should write filePro .net ... hm-mm</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(a 25 user license of SQL2000 is only $1500)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Christopher Yerry</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV></DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=29917/*http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250">Learn more.</a>