VOPS
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Geoff Schaller on 19 Nov 2005 20:03 Ginny, > Xbase languages are a niche market too. I don't think any of us see Vulcan > competing with C# or VB. It doesn't compete in the "compilers" category or > it would lose for sure. It has to compete based on what it does that is > special - compile VO code. This is where you are very wrong (and I note your use of the possessive with Vulcan again). Vulcan clearly competes with C# and VB.net because I don't believe there will be the scenario where we will just 'convert' our 300,000 line VO apps and class libraries to anything. So if there is any conversion effort involved, it will be as easy to convert to C# as it would Vulcan. The only advantage Vulcan has over C# is that syntax is more familiar. However both you and others like Graham McK have demonstrated how easy it is for VO'ers to pick up C#. Now that changes the scene a little because anyone with an MSDN subscription already has C# for free so Vulcan becomes a pure additional cost. Balance it up: C# has been out there a while, is relatively bug free and has an enormous international community behind it, 1000s of free samples, 3rd party add-ons galore. Vulcan is an as yet untested compiler with 2 engineers and about 150 interested people behind it ....and we have seen how Brian treats the concept of bug fixes. This is the position many will have to weigh up. > I am still going very fast toward C#. I just see Vulcan as a tool that can > help me get my VO code into that world too. It's very likely that my > Vulcan apps will be extended with C# code rather than with new Vulcan > code, but I won't know for sure until Vulcan is released. But you could just as easily not use Vulcan at all. As Paul Piko has already demonstrated, VO apps can call and work with .net apps and vice versa so isn't it case that if your new work is to be done in C# rather than Vulcan that you don't really need Vulcan at all? Geoff
From: Geoff Schaller on 19 Nov 2005 20:07 Johel, On a completely philosophical level, to be anti-American for the sake of it is as silly as some of the attitudes that some Americans have. But the fact of the matter is that I don't see any country, religion or race anywhere on this globe that can claim the high moral ground. Wouldn't it be much better if we all just sat down and analysed tools and goals on their own merit? Geoff "Johel" <johelsouzafilho(a)uol.com.br> wrote in message news:1132412977.530693.86430(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Ginny > > > > Well worth reading and supports what Johel is saying > > > > http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020463,39236745,00.htm > > > I've been saying it for the last 4 years now and people still do not > understand. Well, Google is my friend and what I said to Ginny back in > 2001 in still there. > > Regards, > Johel
From: Geoff Schaller on 19 Nov 2005 20:21 Johel, > That's not true anymore. Please, understand that PCs are local made > here in Brazil using local resources (plants, employees, etc). MS Um, don't you mean 'assembly'? I wasn't aware Brazil manufactured silicon chip products (memory, HDDs and prcessors?) and things like power supplies and cases are made in China anyway. I doubt Brazil could be much cheaper. However, even in Oz, a brand new P4 processor at 3Ghz with 160GB hdd and 500MB RAM is around AUD 900 with operating system. I don't see how the equation would be that much different in Brazil. What about LCD monitors? Does Brazil manufacture those too? The retail price is now ridiculously low even by our standards. Surely this is all changing the affordability equation? > software is US made using US resources (plants, employees, etc) and > that's why MS software is so much expensive here in Brazil. Open source No, no! <g>. A lot is manufactured in China, Malaysia and Taiwan. I guess there must be some local manufacture in the US but almost all the items I see in the big computer shops definitely originate in Asia. Maybe IBM - they have manufacturing facilities in Ireland but I don't know where they are sold. The IBM equipment found here in Oz is all made in Asia. > For example, SQLServer Express + SQL Server Management Studio Express > is a good enough solution for small businesses. Why should I buy the > full SQL Server if those said businesses will never reach SQLServer > Express limitations? Absolutely! But once the customer wants to expand beyond the capacity of SQL Express then SLQ Server is the obvious path. That is how MS want it and I think it is reasonable. And if the client can afford the expansion, he can afford the software to deal with it. Geoff
From: Jamal on 19 Nov 2005 20:32 Geoff, > Vulcan is an as yet untested compiler with 2 engineers > and about 150 > interested people behind it. How do you know that? Since the time you have been kicked out, I see more names in VOPS forum and I expect the numbers to keep climbing based on what I've seen. These are dedicated people even before the product is released. Is that a problem for you? You should really stop this constant barrage of non-sense, because it really DOES hurt your credibility after all of your contributions to this NG. Jamal "Geoff Schaller" <geoffxx(a)softxxwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message news:437fcb2b$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Ginny, > >> Xbase languages are a niche market too. I don't think any of us see >> Vulcan >> competing with C# or VB. It doesn't compete in the "compilers" category >> or >> it would lose for sure. It has to compete based on what it does that is >> special - compile VO code. > > This is where you are very wrong (and I note your use of the possessive > with Vulcan again). Vulcan clearly competes with C# and VB.net because I > don't believe there will be the scenario where we will just 'convert' our > 300,000 line VO apps and class libraries to anything. So if there is any > conversion effort involved, it will be as easy to convert to C# as it > would Vulcan. > > The only advantage Vulcan has over C# is that syntax is more familiar. > However both you and others like Graham McK have demonstrated how easy it > is for VO'ers to pick up C#. > > Now that changes the scene a little because anyone with an MSDN > subscription already has C# for free so Vulcan becomes a pure additional > cost. Balance it up: C# has been out there a while, is relatively bug free > and has an enormous international community behind it, 1000s of free > samples, 3rd party add-ons galore. Vulcan is an as yet untested compiler > with 2 engineers and about 150 interested people behind it ...and we have > seen how Brian treats the concept of bug fixes. > > This is the position many will have to weigh up. > >> I am still going very fast toward C#. I just see Vulcan as a tool that >> can >> help me get my VO code into that world too. It's very likely that my >> Vulcan apps will be extended with C# code rather than with new Vulcan >> code, but I won't know for sure until Vulcan is released. > > But you could just as easily not use Vulcan at all. As Paul Piko has > already demonstrated, VO apps can call and work with .net apps and vice > versa so isn't it case that if your new work is to be done in C# rather > than Vulcan that you don't really need Vulcan at all? > > Geoff >
From: Geoff Schaller on 19 Nov 2005 20:53
Jamal, Well the numbers have never been a real big secret and Brian openly gave us a ball park figure at DevFest this year. 150, 200 even 250 (which we all doubt) - it doesn't change the scale of things. The numbers are minute compared with those for C# and VB. > You should really stop this constant barrage of non-sense, because it > really DOES hurt your credibility after all of your contributions to > this NG. But Jamal there is no barrage and its not nonsense: neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated the slightest counter argument so I don't believe my credibility suffers at all. Discussion about our future and options is always relevant. Pressuring GrafX for a better deal for VO32 is always relevant. Discussing ideas around portability to other languages is always relevant. Why do you seek to censor such discussions? You can easily ignore them if you wish. But if you wish to rebut numbers or ideas then please provide your own. Merely complaining that something is wrong doesn't make it so, it just damages your credibility. Geoff |