Re: From classical 4gl to Dynamic 4gl

Hello happy 4gl's developpers I wonder if Dynamic 4gl is the same as the compiler we use since 2 years now. It'll be the first time where german and french products reach a worldwide production. 4J's, the company that wrote this compiler, has made a simple and useful compiler. We developped 4 applications in 4GL 4.10 (start in 1988 !!!) which sizes from 20000 to 200000 lines of code. The biggest one handle a database of about 350 tables and our biggest customer's database weight 1GB (under Informix SE 4.10). In 1996 we were looking for and easy, secured and cheap way to migrate from text-based client to Windows ones. A demo of the 4J's product at our company and WITH OUR APPLICATIONS shows that, in only 4 hours and a few compilations, it works !!! We bought 4J's compiler and start migrate our apps. 3 month later it was fully done and, with the same code, we can product old 4GL code or new 4J's P-code for both text- and windows-based clients. This experience also allow us to run our applications on OnLine server (Unix and NT OS). In terms of compatibility we encounter very few troubles and often because of keeping compatibility between 4GL and 4J's. The biggest problem concerned the C functions we had to translate. As the 4J's compiler produces only P-code, it requires a runner for execution and C functions must be compiled in this runner so they become available to all P-code programs. The 4J's compiler doesn't allow differences in parameters between calling and called functions. Well, I think it's and advantage. Of course, as the old library linked with 4GL programs disappears, replaced by the runner, the size of each program decrease dramatically. In fact, P-code is smaller than source-code. For example, our biggest app is made of about 300 programs and 900 forms. The source directory weight 18 Mb and, in 4GL, the binaries weight 150Mb. In 4J's release, binaries weight .... 14 Mb. Considering performance, we don't find big differences between 4GL and 4J's at runtime. The compiler is also about 5 times faster than C4gl (from 90 minutes to only 20 for the 300 programs of our app with forms). Anton Kormancik wrote: > We work and develope under 4gl for 6 years. > Now I am very interested in Dynamic 4gl but havent seen that > and have no experience with it yet. > Did anybody of you recompile his 4gl programs to Dynamic 4gl? > If yes, then let me please know what were your biggest problems > at chanching from terminal applicatians to windows applications? > It seems very hopeful but I very would like to know about possible > problems. > Thanks much. > Anton Kormancik.