Re: "WordWrap" and temporary string storage

>>One of the things I like about Informix-4GL is that it does NOT >>have all them "bells and whistles." This is also why I and many other >>people like C. Why have all those huge libraries filled with crud >>you'll never use? ... >Here I have to disagree with you. Are you suggesting that I do *not* get >a 200 Kb executable every time I write a "hello world" program? If so, >I have a news flash for you :-). Actually, it's 227190 Bytes. I just >checked. I suspect that this executable is filled with crud the program >will never use. Does this bother me? Not really. I should have written >it in C. >I was under the impression that I4GL was a speciality language designed >for developing database applications. If so, it makes sense that the >libraries contain enough crud to do it as efficently as possible. Exactly. To strengthen the argument, consider that it probably adds MORE to the size of the end result for me to have to code all this malarkey every time I want to use it or via a code generator. It probably would take much less space if in the language; and we're talking about common requests here, not arcane things only one person will use. If you're *really* worried about executable size, create a cfglgo option to create a runner that only has the stuff used in a given set of 4gl code... :-) Consider the various code generator deals out there right now, like Dave Snyder's... The mere existence of these demonstrates (a) a need and (b) a deficiency in the language for not meeting that need. (Oh, and let's not forget how much we're all paying for these products, compared to many other software packages, etc. Yeah, I'm the guy who posted before saying that if something has a high price tag then I have pretty high expectations of it and it's support. I hope the developers are reminded of this daily... let's all chant, "Informix's cost implies users expect the best"...) (Oh, and let's retire the "but it's the same for Informix's competition" argument. It may be the same for other Unix database vendors, but let's look at some other large, highly complex packages. Does WordPerfect for Suns cost $32,000 [a 1-user development license for RDS+Online for a class F machine] ? Er, no, that's $495. As I ponder it, it seems that Informix is one of (if not *the*) most expensive non-custom software package that comes to mind. I'm not griping about the price per se, but what one gets for that price. Here's hoping 4gl++ is an order of magnitude better language than 4gl... (though, really, 4gl should have been better than it is!).) (Sorry for the excessive flaming, but sometimes with informix I feel like I've, say, hired an extremely expensive executive secretary, and s/he spends all day goofing off, messing up work, and being surly. :-) -- Andrew Burt aburt@du.edu "But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."