FiveTech Support Forums

Do you all find it necessary to take such efforts for hiding the fakt that we are programming in xHarbour?

Must we fake to be competent c programmers?

I'm really interested about this,
Detlef

Must we fake to be competent c programmers?

It maybe, but it wouldn't be the truth.

EMG

George,

you might be right.

But by faking the knowledge of c language and hiding the use of xHarbour you continue serving the prejudice of C being the 'best' programming language.

Regards,
Detlef

Detlef,

For me the best language is [x]Harbour + FWH, because these are the languages (and the GUI) that I know. I am proud of using it

BTW, when any of my customer ask the question, I tell them that my software is developed using xBase language that is derived from Clipper and Dbase.
No one of them know about Clipper or Dbase and I never tell them about C language although some modules into my program are written in C.

Why you are upset?

To the best of my knowledge the C and C++ are the "Kings" of programming language.
Do you know that the clipper compiler itself was written in C.

Regards,

George

A concern that I have is the designation of beta.

George,

sorry, i'm not upset.
But i can't stand the attitude of some programmers 'Oh, i'm just fumbling around with my little Clipper or xHarbour compiler'.

The quality of a program doesn't depend on the compiler language.
This is what we should claim.

I saw excellent programs written in Qbasic and very bad programs written with Delphi or MS Visual C++.

There is no need to get an inferiority complex because you are using xHarbour and FWH.
One must only be ashamed when not being able to write good applications with the compiler of your choice.

Still my 2 cents,
Detlef

The quality of a program doesn't depend on the compiler language.

George wrote:Although our friend Enrico does no want to believe.

Marketing Enrico Marketing

Everyone know about C language and SQL.

George

George wrote:Marketing Enrico Marketing

Everyone know about C language and SQL.

George

It maybe, but it wouldn't be the truth.

Hi all

I grant that users may have certain beliefs about a particular computer language or other development tool or environment and that these may well not be entirely rational. And I can certainly understand a client needing some reassurance re xBase (xHarbour / Harbour) and FWH which have relatively small user bases so that they could potentially disappear or replacement developers be almost impossible to locate.

But for most projects for which xBase is a sensible choice, I see very clear reasons for promoting xBase as a better choice than C. Good C code can be very efficient but it is substantially longer and more complicated to achieve the same outcome (ie more expensive to write, more prone to hidden errors such as memory leakage etc).

These days the discusssion might more likely be with other choices such as Java or Web apllication.

My advice would be to promote the benefits of xBase (and there are many) rather than try to pretend its something that it really isn't.

Regards
xProgrammer

Hi guys!

Same here in the Philippines... If they (some programmer friends and users alike) ask me 'what is your programming language?'

I answered them proudly... 'xHarbour!' ...it's an opensource and the descendant of xbase family which has Win32 and Linux platform...

some says... it old.... and hardcoded... I say... can your VB do this... that...
and he just shut-up!

One of my friend ask for source form xharbour and I gave him the .C (compiled by xharbour).... and said... 'Damn your good!'

My point is.... Lets just say 'xHarbour' and point him to xHarbour.org

2cents!

Regards,

Hi all,
I don't see a "real" problem to say "It is a C app" for the simply reason that xharbour generate a C source code for each prg module.

When I sign a software license agreement where I provide a software product for a distributor that will pay me a royalty for each copy it will sell, often the distributor (if it is a big distributor) require the deposit of sources on a thirth part (generally a public notary) in order to access this sources if a particular event will manifest (for example a bankroupt of my company that could be damage the distributor's end-user). The C source produced from xHarbour are always accepted because the distributor can generate the executable file simply using these C modules without any PRG source.

That is interesting Marco.

George