Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: "tony miller" <tony_becky_mikey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:40:34 GMT
Limits are, 1 processor only, 4 gig memory limit, no java support like
normal Oracle has (can't compile java in the database).. But, you can offer
up a pretty good small application, on a small network, with a web front end
and not have to deal with installing the web software.. The install for
Oracle 10 XE installs all that!!
You can start using the gui interface to create your new schema an HTML-DB
application right through the browser!!!
(Right now it is in Beta.. Small issues with the product are being worked
out, but when it is released next year, it will be free!! with the
development environment bundled with it!!
I will say it again, for those who think I am being Ant-Fox here.. It has
its place, but when everyone seems to be wanting a browser based
application, and the tools are heading farther in that directions, why would
you stay in the desktop environment?
Change is inevitable, either go with it or work against it.. In a year or
three I maybe working in .net or php, who knows.. I know that I will
continue to learn and develop..
"Matthew L Reed" <nousenetspam at dead ice dot us> wrote in message
news:e337LBp9FHA.2364@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Have you used 10XE? Does it have any performance or concurrent connection
> limits? And is it as DBA intensive as higher end Oracle DBs? One reason we
> don't use Oracle is that we don't want to hire a bunch of DBAs. We can use
> MSSQL server with a fraction of the DBAs that the same Oracle DBs take.
>
> "tony miller" <tony_becky_mikey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:_%ujf.2088$w74.764@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Folks,
>> I am gonna jump in here with teh tool that we have looked at and are
>> using at this time.. It is an Oracle product, so all the microsofties can
>> leave now...
>>
>> kay, they leaft.. It is call HTML-DB.. The product RUNS in the database!!
>> It provides an very nice development enviroment and rather tight
>> application for browser based applications..
>>
>> Yes, you ned either a copy of Oracle 9i R3 or 10g, or... YOu can get the
>> latest version of Oracle 10 XE, for FREE!!
>>
>> So the cost factor for "Mom & Pop" shops to run Oracle applications just
>> went down..
>>
>>
>> "Brett Wickard" <brettwickard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:eA3LeCF9FHA.4084@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I totally agree. I hated .NET when I first started with it, but after
>>>using it for awhile, I think it is a way more productive tool and
>>>starting with the new VS2005 it's more productive IMO than VFP even for
>>>desktop database apps. Has anybody who started with FP/VFP/etc. and
>>>subsequently used .NET extensively (i.e. at least two decent sized
>>>projects) still think that VFP is the best tool for a lot of db apps? I
>>>used to, but no longer.... It's still a fine tool, and I still
>>>upgrade/add-on to current projects, but .NET 2.0 (VS2005) is really
>>>killer.
>>>
>>>
>>> "gerry" <germ@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:eLhLFhE9FHA.1148@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>I used to think the same way, until I actually dug in and started doing
>>>>some
>>>> serious .net development.
>>>> I can't honestly think of anything significant that could be done in
>>>> 25%
>>>> less time using VFP than using .NET.
>>>> In fact I would say it is much more than 25% skewed in the opposite
>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Matthew L Reed" <nousenetspam at dead ice dot us> wrote in message
>>>> news:udXUY3D9FHA.3416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "gerry" <germ@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uHkZTy58FHA.3880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> > "Matthew Reed" <matty don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot
>>>>> > com
>>>>> > remove the don't send me any freaking spam> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:%23pN2Ier8FHA.3200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > <...>
>>>>> >> What I have not yet
>>>>> >> figured out is what the small mom and pop shop is going to use when
>>>>> >> VFP
>>>>> >> is
>>>>> >> gone? Why spend several times as much money to do something in dot
>>>>> >> net
>>>>> > when
>>>>> >> you can do it for a fraction of the cost in VFP? On the one hand, I
>>>>> >> can
>>>>> >> undercut a dot net system with a VFP system easily provided the
>>>>> > requirements
>>>>> >> of the system can be met with VFP.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Its pretty hard to undercut the price of Visual Studio 2005 Express
>>>>> > +
>>>> SQL
>>>>> > Server 2005 Express - they're free !
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> We aren't talking about the price of the development tool, we are
>>>>> talking
>>>>> about the cost of develoment. If I can do something in VFP 25% faster
>>>>> then
>>>>> in Visual Studio 2005 Express + SQL Server 2005 Express, then it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> matter whether or not it is free. The cost of the development tool is
>>>> seldom
>>>>> an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, look it at this way. Get a free tool, pay $35,000 for your app to
>>>>> be
>>>>> devloped. Pay $650 (or so) for VFP, pay $25,000 for your app to be
>>>> devloped.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: Paul Pedersen
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: Matthew L Reed
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: Gene Wirchenko
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- References:
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: tony miller
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- From: Matthew L Reed
- Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- Prev by Date: Re: Data from an xls to a dbf.
- Next by Date: Error in Installshield Express 5.00
- Previous by thread: Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- Next by thread: Re: Future of VFP (yet again)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
