Re: It's incredible

In article <3n3oqt$3ib@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu>, jairo@ans.net says most eloquently... > >} I find it incredible that developers actually try to defend INFORMIX as >} if by some mixed up loyalty. Anyone that has developed (or tryed to) a >} major application in INFORMIX will tell you that they have been hit by >} bug after bug in the dev' sys', not to count the core bugs in the SQL engine. >} There was even a serious bug in the 4.0 SE engine that ment NULL values >} were not returned properly & required changing the table schemas to NON NULL >} The 4.1 release corrected this but did not mention it (keep it under the >} carpet boys). I spent weeks trying to correct this, thinking it was my >} fault, until I got 4.1 & the problem disappeared. INFORMIX is too far away >} from the user base. They have even got rid of most of there distributers. It >} would be nice if INFORMIX would at least list their products shortcomings >} or tell their customers of any serious known bugs. They dont do this & I >} can not forgive them for it. The amazing OUTER JOIN bug is so serious >} that I can't believe people just take it in their stride. Someone said - >} it is core code & probably will never be fixed - b-locks - we pay a lot >} of money for SQl - fix it. I'm sorry but I have no simpathy INFORMIX >} shpuld sort out MAJOR problems like this !!!! I have wriiten 200,000 lines >} of INFORMIX code & half (estimate) of my time has been spent getting >} around INFORMIX 4GL & SQL bugs. >} Anyone had similar experience. >} Regards >} Chris "seize that engine" Moore >} > >Hi all, >Even though I have not faced the bugs mentioned in this note, I do find >just incredible that people say and think that INFORMIX 4GL is a good >product. I have one year of experience with INFORMIX 4GL and two with >PROGRESS and I have found that INFORMIX 4GL does not empower but instead >sets the programmer back. INFORMIX 4GL is not a true fourth generation. >A programmer should not have to worry about creating forms to open >windows. Also, field data integrity could be set up in the data >dictionary not in the program code. Report generation should be something >easy to do and not a major problem solved using perl or other languages. >A fourth generation language, in other words a real tool, can do many things >for the programmer and INFORMIX 4GL just does not do. > >Just my honest opinion. > >Jairo@ans.net > Interesting points. From my limited experience, having delt with the INFORMIX 4GL mostly, I find people use the term 4GL with casual abandon. Out of the myriad of terms, I hear '4GL' referred (refered?) to mainly in two different ways: 1. A language 2. A menu-based application development software package where the software generates the underlying program code necessary to run an end-user application. INFORMIX's 4GL seems to qualify under the first category. There are few that meet this test. I have seen numerous attempts by programmers to write languages and compilers that would copy the 4GL, by creating C programs with a set of #define statements, and some kind of rudimentary substitution. INFORMIX has a true language, involving procedural and non-procedural attributes. This is what makes it a really great product. The flexibility appeals to many folks who have come out of a C programming environment, The second category would fall to a PROGRESS, or ACCELL, and a whole host of other products. If you look at mainframe software development, you will see striking similarities. These products in <MY> mind are not LANGUAGES. They do offer a certain amount of construction involving boolean logic, but do not fit the language model most programmers understand. If anything they represent in the purest of senses a step toward object-orientated programming. As to defending INFORMIX, well, to each his/her own. I remember when INFORMIX was so unknown that when I ran into another INFORMIX programmer I was quite surprised, but also delighted. I saw this person had the same respect for a truly great product amongst very few others. My choices were limited to Oracle, INFORMIX, Business Basic (egad!), and not much else. ACCELL while a great product just didn't get out there. It could be compared to a Progress, and had/has some very nice features INFORMIX shoulda had. For those of you who are wondering why anyone would have such loyalty to INFORMIX, ( and yet see someone like me kick 'em ) you have to have been with the product for a while. Newer programmers and new-to-INFORMIX people see things a lot differently than I do. I know what INFORMIX is capable of. And I expect a lot better than I'm seeing. I know they CAN do a better job of supporting developers, responding to the market faster, and taking some positions that show sensitivity to the market. Producing accurate product information with detail and clarity. Seamless installs. Loyalty to INFORMIX is something that is given based on respect, They earned my loyalty by seeing how good the product was compared to others. Evaluating software development tools and products is so drastically different than even three years ago. The pace is accellerated. There are no longer just a handful of players, but a global village marketplace where distinction saves you from extinction. Yes, INFORMIX you have great products. But not that distinct anymore. ( Oracle is taking lessons from Microsoft--or is it the other way around? ) Anyway, I think you're very fortunate to have worked on the 4GL, even with it's bugs. Accept them, work around them, and keep in mind it's one of most flexible products you will find. Not to mention a great data base to go with it. Oh, here's some trivia: Who invented C-ISAM? -- \\\\|// (o o) ==============================---o00--(_)--00o---============================ Tim Schaefer http://www.gate.net/~tschaefe The Computer Business Company, Inc. tschaefe@gate.net Coconut Creek, FL, USA INXUTIL 2.0 is now absolutely FREE Ub...eh...Now, see, who gets to ask the questions here? --Ross Perot =============================================================================