Re: Progress
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:40:56 -0500, Obnoxio The Clown wrote: Obnoxio's assessment is about right. Functionally equivalent to 7.2x with a very nice event driven 4GL. Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. Solid reliable, no bells or whistles, nothing special to write home about. Art S. Kagel > Dirk Moolman wrote: > >> I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps insisting >> Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the world. >> >> Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff Informix can >> do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I just want some backup >> the next time he tells me Progress is the best. >> >> It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ... > > Shoot him, it's quicker and less stressful for both of you. > > In a practical sense, it's difficult to compare them, because Progress has a > very rich 4GL that is inherently part of of the environment. > > Progress's website is so opaque and difficult to find things in, it actually > make's IBM's look good. > > <read, read, read> > > OK, well, on the basics, it seems Progress is OK, but they have a pretty > complete software stack. So they wouldn't make it possible for the database to > do stuff like hide a screen scrape from someone else's website in the > database, they'd probably make it available in the middleware stack. I'd also > be fairly gobsmacked if they could do stuff like allow you to do things like > implement your own secondary access mechanisms or create totally new data > types. > > I'd say from a functionality point of view, it's probably on a par with 7.24 > or thereabouts, but the problem is convincing people who are used to RDBMSs > that object-relation extensions have any value. I'm busy climbing that > mountain with a customer right now, and it's very slippery... :o) >
Art S. Kagel wrote: > Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or > Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. Sigh.
Art S. Kagel wrote: > Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or > Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. Sigh.