Vulcan .Net and VO 2.8 - yeah right....
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Geoff Schaller on 27 Sep 2006 18:50 > DBFCDX. But SQL soon. When you're ready, we've got a lot we can help with. If you're interested in a set of classes that can turn your DBF oriented code almost instantly in SQL code, email me direct. We can show you how to run DBF and SQL simultaneously almost without any code changes to the broader app. Geoff > > Of course, I said that LAST year. Some of my long-time customers > still use the Clipper app concurrently with the VO version. (Same > DBFs.) And, since guns are legal in the US and many of my loyal users > are in Texas, changing too quickly could become an occupational hazard. > > > > It's funny how evangelical types miss this fact <g>. I'm only glad I've > > been able to contribute. > > > Knuckleheads like me appreciate the wisdom of masters like you. > > -- Joe Curran > Columbus, Ohio
From: Geoff Schaller on 27 Sep 2006 18:53 Interesting bit of research. Kind of confirms what many of us have felt was happening. And you are right, GrafX and others seem to want to shoot the messengers rather than listen and take things on board... Geoff
From: Geoff Schaller on 27 Sep 2006 18:57 Jamal, > Then tell me what your "REAL" motives are!!!! Tell me what your > true colors" are?. Come on Geoff <g> be truthful. But that is easy and I have said it dozens of times. My motive is for a better VO32, nothing else. I really don't care about Vulcan one way or the other. I am not against it or for it. I am happy it exists but disappointed it absorbed more than its fair share of VOPS resources. We will assess it but the time for any potential benefit is probably now past for us. I only see a trail of broken promises and delays for VO32 and it is my intention to keep pressuring GrafX for a better deal for VO32. Quite simple really. And quite consistent. Geoff
From: Jamal on 27 Sep 2006 19:26 > But that is easy and I have said it dozens of times. My motive is for a > better VO32, nothing else. However, will all due respect, your approach is flawed. > I really don't care about Vulcan one way or the other. I am not against it > or for it. I am happy it exists but disappointed it absorbed more than its > fair share of VOPS resources. That's not true one bit. Both had their own tracks and dev teams. > We will assess it but the time for any potential benefit is probably now > past for us. Who is 'We' ? May be past for you, but who are you to speak for "Us"? I see great ponential. > I only see a trail of broken promises and delays for VO32 < You have 2757 (or later) and Robert worked very hard to bring VO to a stage where it will be the most stable of VO that you have ever known. Soon, there will be 2.8 > it is my intention to keep pressuring GrafX for a better deal for VO32 < ROFL!! Jamal "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message news:451b01d6$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Jamal, > >> Then tell me what your "REAL" motives are!!!! Tell me what your >> true colors" are?. Come on Geoff <g> be truthful. > > > Quite simple really. And quite consistent. > > Geoff > >
From: Rene J. Pajaron on 27 Sep 2006 20:44
Ginny, Good to know that someone here (or maybe more) have the same line of thinking. I am consistent with my arguments: VO does not define my business; it is my business define what VO should be; we will replace it in due time; and that due time does not come yet; and it should not be detrimental to clients. So my transformation process will be evolutionary and by phases. Hence, Vulcan is best buy to this proposition. And VO 2.8 will be further add the value current codebase while .Net transformation is underway, clients are happy with VO-coded system. Rene Ayon kay Ginny Caughey: > Rene, > > They really aren't. Geoff has said so flatly. I do know that Graham has been > involved in a rewrite of a large medical app from VO to C#, but the company > that owned the VO code was sold, so it's really new work. That's not to say > that C# isn't well suited for large accounting apps - I'm using C# myself > for new work and have been for years now. But that also doesn't mean that > I'm converting huge VO apps to C# - they're staying in VO until I can > migrate them using Vulcan. > > I agree about what's the big fuss. C# is a great language. VO is useful for > making money, especially if you own proven VO code that has been making you > money for years. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I use both! And > you're also right that clients don't care either way. > > -- > Ginny > > > "Rene J. Pajaron" <rjpajaron(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1159316724.685977.246830(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Ginny, > > > > My impression is that "they" are "converting" huge VO-coded accounting > > system (not a simple VO scather/gather/printing sort of applications) > > to C#. > > > > I have C#, and my VO won't matter having them here <g>. But have no > > commercial commitment so far for C#. Well, clients dont care much what > > language. > > > > So, whats the big fuss? > > > > Care to figure line-by-line conversion for the sake of all the insane > > and "not-so-smart" VOers here, brainwashed to the max by grafx praising > > "dead" VO..... > > > > Bringing back Lazarus.... thats VO. > > > > Rene > > > > > > Ayon kay Ginny Caughey: > >> Rene, > >> > >> > I am also considerting porting my VO code to .Net, hence Vulcan is big > >> > shot for me. However, with lots of noise with VO developers moving > >> > huge VO-coded accounting system to C#: > >> > >> Actually the noise makers aren't moving VO code to .NET at all! They are > >> writing new apps in C#, which some of them like Geoff just discovered. > >> <g> > >> I've been writing new apps in C# for a number of years now, but I'll be > >> moving my big VO apps to .NET when Vulcan is ready. > >> > >> Ginny > > |